Jump to content

Talk:Rudyard Kipling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Biography

I would like to know more about his non career life... how many kids? what was he like as a father? did he get divorced? and apparently he sent his son to war- and then died 6 weeks later (the son.. ) a movies coming out about this soon? And if i decided to research this, which section should it go? write a new one.. it doesnt really fit into early career... Cilstr 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


virtually none of this article is written from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.191.252 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist or antisemite

According to a review of David Gilmour's The Long Recessional, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/04/30/gilmour/index1.html Kipling "was ecstatic on visiting Brazil to find that the mixture of 'Red, Black and White' had 'managed to knock out the Colour-Question altogether.'" This would be a strange reaction indeed if Kipling opposed race mixture.--David T. 19 Jan 2006

I have moderated the statements regarding Kipling's purported racism / antisemitism. Put simply, the blunt statement that "Kipling was a racist, antisemite etc...." is bad style. It represents a subjective view, and a fairly sweeping judgement, neither of which encyclopaedias are intended to provide. In an emotive and hotly debated topic, a little nuance goes a long way.

I would also like to see some evidence or sources regarding Kipling's purported antisemitism. In recent years, this term has been crippled by overuse, so a little clarification as to whether or not it genuinely applies to Kipling would be helpful.--Faulenzer 18 Oct 2005

Well, IF you take the persona of 'The Stanger' to be Kipling himself, he WAS at least against 'mixing the races':

http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=3109&poem=16862

The poem itself does not suggest otherwise, but of course it might be simply not fair to judge the author's view from one poem alone. Somebody interested in his biography, however, might want to do some research as to when and how he came up with a poem like this...

213.7.96.54 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Critics have found in his works both both advocacy and criticism of Victorian colonialism.

This really needs to be more detailed. Which works? The advocacy part is pretty easy ("White Man's Burden" springs to mind), criticism less so. 200.191.188.xxx, do you have specific examples I can use? -- Paul Drye

Not off the top of my pointy little head, sorry. :-) I remember reading "something" about this. I'll look around and see what I can find.
Later. All right, I'm going to dump some links here for your perusal. I haven't read them in detail and don't know what they're arguing. No warranty, express or implied, etc., - I just looked on Google for Kipling + colonialism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

So, antisemite would be one thing (I have seen no proof of), but he clearly saw a devine purpose in England's colonial role. He was very patriotic and considered colonies a necessity. Also he was convinced that the "savages" had to be taught Christianity, which was not at all an uncommon point of view. He was a "hypernational" in that he considered other nations unworthy of having colonies, particularly after Italy, Germany and the USA started ambitions in becoming a colonial power.
In a way, that makes him a racist, but that word is too blunt and (today!!!) insulting to see Kipling's point of view. --FlammingoParliament 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kipling's House

Clarification to Kipling's house(s): Bateman's in Sussex was his house for the last 34 years of his life and was bequeathed to the National Trust on his wife's death in 1939. The mansion bequeathed on his daughter's death was Wimpole Hall in Cambridgeshire, which has no connection with Kipling other than the fact that his daughter lived there. Wilus

From the deleted talk page of If —

Are you sure about the copyright status of "If--", 205.188.198.xxx? We're exactly 75 years past Kipling's death, so it may not be in the public domain. A quick boo around the Kipling Society's web page didn't help....--Paul Drye

"We're exactly 75 years past Kipling's death, so it may not be in the public domain."

If we were it would be, but it's actually 67 years.

Died in 1936. Isn't this still copyright? And anyway, Wikipedia is not the place for source texts! -- Tarquin 17:09, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If he died in 1936, this is copyrighted until 2006. At18 21:56, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't create this page, I just separated it out from the Rudyard Kipling page. I shall revert what I did and move this talk back to that page. Angela 22:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A writer of prose

I'm not sure the article really grasps Kipling's status as a writer of prose. His poetry is fine as far as it goes, and he was a great author of children's literature, but he was also one of the finest short story writers in English. It seems odd that there is no critical consideration of him as a prose writer. Kipling had a great influence as a writer of short stories, notably on Jorge Luis Borges.

I made a start. Borges reference: No hay uno solo de los cuentos de este volumen que no sea, a mi parecer, una breve y suficiente obra maestra. "There is not one of the stories in this volume that is not, it seems to me, a brief and sufficient masterpiece." [1] Anderson reference: "He is for everyone who responds to vividness, word magic, sheer storytelling. Most readers go on to discover the subtleties and profundities." [2] Maybe these could go in the article as footnotes--but then we might also want C. S. Lewis's "all vitamins and no roughage" or something, for balance. —JerryFriedman 21:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I have just read Kipling's "Kim", and it's full of love for India and colonies, and it depict the Whites in a rather idiotic light, not as a superior, but as an almost inferior race. He could not be a racist at all, it's just stupid British modern political correctness that appeared recently. In some cultures lies are more acceptable way of behaviour than in the others. The same could be said about saying "Thanks", or smiling, or drinking... no need to call "Kim could lie like an Oriental" an infamous statement. We, outside Britain and English speaking world, don't see any racism here.

Zhix, Serbia

How can Kipling's "American Notes- African American Types" be read as anything but blatant racism. Probably, pretty standard racism for the time but with statements "cursing the negro waiter, and through him the negro in service generally", "Now, God and his father's fate made him intellectually inferior to the Oriental.", "He is a big, black, vain baby and a man rolled into one.", and many more of this same ilk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.58.206 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Customized Classics

"Customized classics" are a range of "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?" You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed one of these links from this article, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 19:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You mean I can get Bartleby the Scribner with my own name in it? That's so cool! :-) (If you have an IP or user name for the Krazy Klassics inserter, let me know. I'd be happy to try my feeble hand at doing something about it.) Geogre 21:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say to all contributors that you made a great article!24.155.222.226 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Swastika?

To me, the swastika is an apparent attempt at labeling Kipling a racist, since it's alligned with the section calling into question his depiction of non-British characters. A racist he might have been, but since that swastika image dates from 1911 (per the wiki article swastika), it obviously did not have the same connotation to him as it does after the Nazis, and obviously, Kipling did not include the swastika on the dust jackets of his books because he was a racist. In this setting, It's predjudicial. (And yes, I realize it's not a Nazi swastika because it goes the other way). Not sure why the image was added right next to the section about Kiplings racial attitudes, but his use of that symbol does not reflect any racist attitudes he had. Anyway, I'll wait a few days to see what anyone else reckons, and them I'll take it off. Unless someone crafts a section about the influence of Indian culture on his works, in which case the swastika (which is an Indian symbol) would be appropriate. Binkymagnus 02:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

A section on the swastika would be excellent; he's a relatively high-profile user of it in the first quarter of the century, and it does lead to a lot of mistaken correlations later on. As it is, we don't even have a reference in the article, despite swastika citing him a couple of times. Not sure where to work it in, though; cultural influences? Perhaps if we break up "Death and Legacy" a bit... Shimgray 11:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
He also used the elephant which would make him a Republican. And why does no-one mention his exceedingly good cakes? Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The current revision describes Kipling's swastika as a Hindu symbol for good luck. However Swastika suggests that this is only the case for the right-facing Nazi version, whereas the left-facing version Kipling is a symbol of evil. This is a discrepancy that needs to be sorted out one way or another. --BigBlueFish 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read Swastika, it refers to the "myth" that there is a difference between left and right handed swastikas in Hindu usage although the right handed one is most common. It also points out that Kipling's version is the one universally used by Buddhists and is a symbol of Buddhism in some countries. Dabbler 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The left-facing symbol is properly described as a Japanese "manji". The Nazi swastika exclusively faces to the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.216.227 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are telling us that the "proper" description of a symbol used by people in India, with which Kipling was intimately familiar and where he grew up, is as something Japanese? Can you explain what you mean? Marnanel (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gothenburg Prize?

The article says he shared "The Gothenburg Prize for Poetry" with WB Yeats. Does anybody have a reference for this? Both articles (Kipling and Yeats) were edited to include this by an anon at the same time, and I can find no other reference to it. Hobx 12:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in Carrington's biography, though the last years are very sketchily covered so I can't rule it out. Shimgray | talk | 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed it, if I am wrong somebody can put it back. Hobx 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Everything that I know about Kipling I learnt growing up in the scouting movement in Australia, particularly in Cub Scouts. The games, the names adopted by the leaders and the stories we learned were all based around the Jungle Book Stories. Does anyone think that references to the scouting movement should be included on this page, maybe under his ‘death and legacy’?

I realise that he didn’t actually found the movement, but Baden-Powell sought and received his consent to use the world created in The Jungle Book as a theme in the Cub Scout movement. I'm sure that there are many others who only know of Kipling through their involvement in the scouting movement.

What do you think?

Fizban 12:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Kim's Games are based on his novel Kim (novel). — HenryLi (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wolcott Balestier

Someone added an unsourced claim that RK had an affair with Wolcott Balestier; I've never heard of this, and so removed it. The only biography I have to hand is Carrington's, which is sufficiently old it wouldn't mention That Sort Of Thing even were it true, but I don't recall reading it in any of the more modern biographies either. Anyone? Shimgray | talk | 15:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Haileybury

Kipling went to the United Services College, the fact that was later amalgamated with the Imperial Services College which eventually combined years later with Haileybury does not make him an Old Haileyburian. Dabbler 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

I found Image:Rudyard Kipling from John Palmer.jpg in a new Gutenberg text which is a front on shot and thought we might want to use it instead of the current one? I figured I should ask to see what others thought first... in any case, the current image crop of the other commons version should be sent to the commons and I'll link to the commons. 68.82.51.76 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... the current profile shot is a more 'famous' one, and as such I'd prefer to keep it even though it's slightly less informative. Shimgray | talk | 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Anti-semitism

"Kipling, in common with many British people of his time, had prejudiced and negative views about Jews. Some consider this to be antisemitism." I'm just going to get rid of this, because it sounds ridiculous to me. I understand that 'anti-semitism', particularly in the first half of the 20th century, can have a complex meaning, but "prejudiced and negative views about Jews" seems to be the very definition of the term. I thought I'd put it on the discussion page in case I'm missing something.

Although I admire Kipling as a writer strongly, despite his politics, I suspect that he did have some anti-Jewish feeling in common with his age. He describes a Masonic lodge (with great approval) as having people from all nations, even Jews. Since these nations include Indians of various sorts, the implication is that the Jews are inferior to the Indians. Of course, you could point out that he liked the Indians! I'm afraid that I can't remember the short story where this appears. It must have been an Indian Masonic lodge and so be in one of the Indian stories. On the other hand, it's a minor issue and I would prefer it NOT to appear in the article. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Jo Edkins

I dont feel that shows he thought of Jews as inferior, but rather as a seperate ethnicity, and in an age that is driven by ethnic divides much more than today, to include Jews in such a society is a considerable display of tolerance. Its the fact that Jews were the victim of much prejudice in the era that it would be worth mentioning that they are included in the lodge, for it would be exceptional and interesting to 19th century minds. Of course I do not feel qualified to say that he definately DIDNT have any anti-semitic feeling.

The short story about the Masonic Lodge may have been one of the later ones, called 'For the Sake of the Brethren'.(86.138.154.51 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

It was very common for Jews to be excluded from clubs and societies of many kinds. I believe, though I can't cite evidence, that this applied particularly to Masonic lodges. Thus it is perfectly plausible that "even Jews" was meant to emphasise how unracist this lodge was in contrast to other lodges, not to indicate that Kipling thought it inappropriate. I cannot be certain without reading the particular story, but the information given above certainly does not justify attributing antisemitism to Kipling. Indeed the fact that the person referring to this story says "he describes a Masonic lodge (with great approval) as having people from all nations, even Jews" makes it difficult to read the remark as antisemitic: it seems to suggest the contrary. I would certainly like to read the story to judge for myself: if anyone can give an exact reference I shall be grateful. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kipling's quarrel with his brother-in-law

(late 1890's) "... he had a quarrel with his brother-in-law, a quarrel that ended up in court. This case darkened his mind and he felt he had to leave Vermont. He and his wife returned to England..."

What was the substance of this quarrel? What was the court decision? -- 201.51.166.124 03:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


There had been disagreements between them about work that Beatty Balestier had done for the Kiplings, resulting in an argument in which it appears that Balestier threatened violence to Kipling. RK had Balestier arrested for assault, Balestier being made to give bail of $400 to keep the peace, and $400 to ensure his appearence at a later hearing, however the Kiplings left America before it came to substantive judgement. See Lord Birkenhead's biography of Kipling ( 'Rudyard Kipling', 1978, Weidenfeld and Nicolson)DuncanHill 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian universities

In modern-day India ... very few universities include Kipling on their reading lists, and deliberately so, though many other British writers remain very much on the menu.

Perhaps this is just me not getting it, but do universities anywhere still have Kipling on their reading lists except as "example of Victorian thought, discuss"? If this is indeed the case, implying it's a special case in India is odd... Shimgray | talk | 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

When I attended university (US) in the early 1980s, we read some of his poetry in English calss. Dr Fiemster remarked that Kipling is not often studied anymore in the US. Something about his work not having much cross-generational signifigance, and being considered somewhat immature by modern standards. But she also said these things are cyclical, and he would probably be "rediscovered" by scholars - someday...just food for thought... Engr105th 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about school in India, but from an American perspective, it's not very accurate to refer to universities themselves having "reading lists". The phrase makes me think of the "please read three books from this list over the summer" documents you get in high school. In college, assignments are much less centralized and professors have a great deal of autonomy; as Shimgray said, any Kipling is going to come in a particular historical/literary/whatever context, it won't just be read because it's a good book. The only exception I can think of is the general "introduction to literature" course that a lot of schools have.
Anyway, large tangent aside: if there's a sustained effort to keep Kipling out of schools in India, that should definitely be included; otherwise, I'd be inclined to get rid of that phrase. Also, it might be more accurate to look at Indian high schools; it seems more likely that Kipling would be taught there, where you have more general English courses. Stilgar135 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO they omit him because he's irrelevant and JABDWA (just another boring dead white asshole).

Under "External links", we have this:

Note that as Kipling's writing is mostly in the public domain...

That may be true for the US, but it isn't for Britain - over here his writing remains in copyright until the end of the calendar year 70 years after his death. In other words, it will go out of copyright on 1 January 2007. Loganberry (Talk) 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is substantially correct but with one proviso. Material that was published during Kipling's lifetime came out of copyright in the UK from 1 January 2007, but material that was published after his death comes out of copyright at the end of the calendar year 70 years after first publication. Thus his autobiography, "Something of Myself" does not come out of copyright until 1 January 2008. Letters and similar material remain in copyright until 70 years after first publication.Kipsoc 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest information on this from A.P. Watt, the literary agent is as follows:

Works published in the lifetime of Rudyard Kipling are now out of copyright throughout the world with the exception of Spain , where they will be protected by copyright until 31st December 2016, and with the exception of any titles first published after 1922 which will still be protected in the US . To check the status or publication dates of particular titles, please contact AP Watt Ltd the London Literary Agents, apw@apwatt.co.uk. Kipsoc 11:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglican?

Does anyone know why Kipling has been included in Category:English Anglicans? While he was baptized into the Anglican church (like the great majority of English people at the time) he does not seem to have been in any way an active churchgoer, and I do not see the relevance of the category. DuncanHill 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Obtained from the 1938 Anglican Church of Canada Revised Hymnal, in which a hymn or hymns appear by Kipling. Kipling's religious affiliation is mentioned in the listing. Homagetocatalonia 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Counter-argument for Racism??

I think I am going to delete this sentence: "Other arguments countering the belief that Indians can not live without the West could clearly be seen in The Jungle Book, where a native boy, Mowgli, is able to happily live in a dangerous environment." It seems very personal, and, in fact, Mowgli (the character) can be seen as a barbarian (and the "civilized" people in the novel sees him that way), thus being an example of the opposite argument. 200.55.118.233 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Nahuel

Nobel Prize

"In 1907, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature and still remains its youngest-ever recipient, as well as the first English language writer to receive the prize."

I would bet a LOT of money that he will ALWAYS remain the first English language writer to receive the prize.  ;-) Lou Sander 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


The Article Needs Citations

The article needs to be reliably sourced and cited. This is true for any article, but especially so for one about an author with legions of admirers and critics. Otherwise, the page risks becoming a soap box for different viewpoints. Since it is highly unlikely that the writers of this page could have personally known Kipling, they likely read what they have written in some book or article. Please cite that book or article. Also, when citing, don't merely give the name of a book, but also provide a page number or a narrow range of page numbers. Once the article is reliably cited, readers can begin to pick their way through Kipling. Sanjay Tiwari 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Problem?

There may not be any problem with this but I wanted to point out that the painted image of Kipling that is toward the bottom of the article, which has his name on it in block letters and whose caption reads that it is part of a much larger mural, may have a copyright problem. It is actually from a Barnes and Noble store. Many of the stores that this corporation opened in the late 1990's (I helped open three of them) had variations of this mural depending on the wall space available. The mural in question had many notable authors on it ranging from Tagore to Wilde to Emily Dickinson. B&N also had a line of book bags and/or coffee mugs (I forget which exactly) with these same pictures on them. Now, the picture in question may be perfectly okay as posted here. I am only noting this so that you wikipedians who are more up to date on the legality of this situation than I am can check it out and remove or leave the image as needs be. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I don't the law here either, but my thought is that were it just a public mural, it probably wouldn't be a problem, but the mugs and book bags do seem to complicate the picture. So, why don't I remove the picture from the article for now and send a note to the uploader (who most likely is also the person who put it in the article.) Sanjay Tiwari 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to log in to that user's talk page. Maybe you can try. I will temporarily disable the image though. Sanjay Tiwari 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kipling's Writing Style

Ok, can somebody PLEASE put some stuff about Kipling's writing style in here? It's so hard to find stuff on that and would be very helpful. So everybody would be greatful if somebody helped out here.


Here are two links at the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) (for grades 3-5):

  • Rudyard Kipling’s “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi”: Mixing Fact and Fiction[3]
  • Rudyard Kipling’s “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi”: Mixing Words and Pictures [4]

For more advanced readers, the Victorian Web seems to be a good resource [5] See the sections on "Characterization," "Themes," and "Narrative." (They analyze Kipling's story, "Mary Postgate" there; it's text is included.) Sanjay Tiwari 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kipling and Snow Golf

I can't seem to find any reliable sources for Kipling having invented or introduced "snow golf" to Vermont. All the web sites I turned up seem to have some ulterior motive in making this claim (i.e. for tourism or the like). I am currently reading a biography of Kipling--"The Long Recessional:The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling" by David Gilmour--and it makes no mention of "snow golf." However, Gilmour does say: "A few visitors trekked out to see them (i.e. the Kiplings) in rural Vermont. Arthur Conan-Doyle, on the eve of creating the incomparable Brigadier Gerard, tried to teach Kipling golf and later sent him a pair of Swedish skis." In light of this, I don't know what to make of the following paragraph about snow-golf in the Wikipedia Kipling article (Career as a Writer section):

A golf enthusiast, Kipling is said to have "invented" the game of "snow golf" while playing in Vermont during the winter months[citation needed]; this story has become an urban legend among golfers, but is a myth since there are numerous records[citation needed] of diehard golfers having played in the snow on various links courses around Scotland and England in the two centuries prior to Kipling's birth. He had learned the basics of golf in boarding school, and later played it - though he was not a golf 'addict' - in India too. In fact, in many of his short stories about colonial life in India (e.g. Plain Tales from the Hills) he mocked the 'golfing set', implying that golf was the archetypal hobby of the idle.[citation needed]

I am tempted to remove it altogether, but I'd like to hear from others. Maybe you have a reliable reference for this, perhaps from some other biography? Sanjay Tiwari 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I did do a Google word search in "Plain Tales from the Hills," but couldn't find "golf" in it; same for all his other collection of Indian stories: Life's Handicap, The Day's Work, Man Who Would be King and other stories, the six volumes from the railway library (Phantom of the Rickshaw, Under the Deodars, etc.), but no "golf." But Google word searches aren't perfect ... Sanjay Tiwari 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Carrington (Rudyard Kipling: His Life and Work, 1955) describing Kipling's time in Vermont has 'Another new sport was golf on the frozen snow, with balls painted scarlet, not altogether a success because ther were no limits to a drive; the ball might skid two miles down the long slope to Connecticut river.' Carrington also mentions RK practising his golf-strokes with the local Congregational minister. Birkenhead's biography of RK also mentions this.
Thanks for references! And I found some others as well. I've incorporated the new info into the text and (temporarily) disabled the previous version above. Sanjay Tiwari 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Throughout this article there are many simple words that are linked to dictionary definitions. Why? Words like speaks, heats, firstborn, courtship and other simple words. The links seem irrelevant and distracting. It's a problem throughout the article, but especially in the intro. Editing instructions state that linking lots of words in the first section is misleading to the reader, creating the impression that these words are being emphasized as key ideas for the article.

I have to confess that I put them in there because I thought that both school kids and foreign language speakers (i.e. people with limited English skills) might be reading the Kipling article (and some words like "heats" for hot spells are not much used any more at least in American English). But, I agree that it was overdone. Will unlink. Sanjay Tiwari 21:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Got rid of most. You are right--there was an awful lot of blue in there. Looks much better now. Thanks. Also, some of the unsightly double footnotes could be combined into single ones. Will attend to that later. Sanjay Tiwari 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The amount of "citation needed"s on this page is needlessly distracting; some form of “this section does not cite its sources” in the section header in its stead would drive me to hate Wikipedia people less. 194.97.164.252 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The "citation needed" were all added by me and I'm slowing slowly working through them and replacing them with references. It should have been done by now, but I got side tracked. Sorry. Should be done by end of next week. Next time, though, please add your message under a separate section at the end of the talk section (see below). Also, consider signing rather than leaving an anonymous message. Sanjay Tiwari 01:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Corrected. Sanjay Tiwari 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sanjay, your self-imposed deadline is approaching. I respect your desire to do a throrough editing job on the Kipling entry but at the moment the number of "citations needed" is almost vandalistically high. I certainly don't hate Wikipedia people but I sympathise with the anonymous poster's misery. If it doesn't look like you'll have time to do the job in the near future, I think you should consider withdrawing your annotations.Russ London 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I've removed the "citations needed." If I've missed any, please feel free to remove them. Thanks for writing! Sanjay Tiwari 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Moved conversation to a new section. Sanjay Tiwari 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image stacking problem

Is there some reason this, a featured article, is in gross violation of the MoS on image stacking? This article has about 2x as many images as it can handle - the images should be staggered left/right, with suitable captions from the text where they are located, with the remaining in a gallery or Wikicommons page. -- Stbalbach 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I think part of the problem is the size of the images - maybe reducing the size of the thumbnails would sort it out. Bob talk 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Down to thumbnail size and alternating left and right. Will fine tune arrangement later. Will move book cover images to gallery. Sanjay Tiwari 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sanjay Tiwari, I think you did an admirable job it's a lot of work. My only comment would be that the text should never have an image both on the left and right side at the same time - which is the case now for about half the article. I think there are too many images for the amount of text in this article - a gallery is an acceptable way to solve it. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage question

I changed "the Venezuela" to "Venezuela", assuming "the" was a typo. Someone reverted it. Was "the Venezuela" really the correct usage at that time? thx1138 03:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

my fault it got caught up in a vandal revert. -- Stbalbach 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Scanned books

I restored the scanned books links. There is a common but mistaken notion that once a book is in ascii text format on Gutenberg that any other electronic format is superfluous. This is incorrect for many reasons. Having direct access to the original printed versions of the text is valuable and important as they are not always the same as the ascii versions, plus many people prefer PDF or other formats. -- Stbalbach 14:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there some way of actually linking to the works, an author page or the like? As we have it now, even if the files are helpful they're hard to get to; we're just linking to a search for them.
Google Books search doesn't return any full-view files, just "snippet view" or "limited preview", and even then I had to fiddle the search to get it, though we are able to restrict it to works by Kipling; archive.org is a simple "kipling" keyword search, and throws up a good deal of content not by him as well as only-moderately-helpful stuff like "The writings in prose and verse of Rudyard Kipling (Volume 22)" which requires a good deal of drilling down to find the actual content of.
The content is comprehensively provided on the other links, to my mind, but I'll let it rest. The Google Books link still seems pointless, though, since you can't really get much useful material out of it... Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I refined the searches, seems to be pretty low noise and on target of free-versions. The projects are constantly expanding so a search is the only way that makes sense to link to it. -- Stbalbach 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive.org certainly looks better now. The "full books only" search link currently there for Google Books, though, still returns 0 files for me... Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've simplified the URL down to http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=1&as_auth=Rudyard+Kipling which says "full view only" (as_brr=1) and "Rudyard Kipling" -- it works OK for me -- work for you? Anyone else? -- Stbalbach 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim & 'He could lie like an Oriental'

Gail Low in White Skins Black Masks: Representation and Colonialism, London: Routledge, 1996 argues that Kim's 'whiteness' is the one irreducible truth of his identity that the narrator forces upon the reader, despite the various 'oriental' disguises he adopts.(Low 212-3) She identifies that the narrator makes references to Kim’s ‘white blood’, a ‘white man’s horror of snakes’ and a ‘European lust for flesh-meat’, when Kim himself, brought up outside European customs, would not be exposed to these characteristics, but fails to add that this is only half the story. For every instance where this is true there is a corresponding description of when Kim “fell back, Oriental fashion, on time and chance” (Kim OUP 1987 p106), “Native fashion…curled himself up... and went to sleep” or “squatted as only the natives can, - in spite of the abominable clinging trousers.” (101). What is interesting about the use of “white” or “European” as against “native” or “Oriental” is how Kipling uses them to emphasise Kim’s estrangement from whichever community he happens to be in: it is when Kim is in the company of the lama or amongst the Indians on the Great Trunk Road that we get references to his ‘whiteness’, and when amongst whites it is his ‘nativeness’ that is described. Low seems not to acknowledge the narrator’s knowing, ironic tone and irony plays a central role in Kim, whose entire existence seems based on his ability to say one thing while meaning another, to appear as one thing while being another. Alan Sandison in The Wheel of Empire: A Study of the Imperial Idea in Some Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Fiction, London: Macmillan, 1967 identifies the source of this irony: Kipling and a chosen few of his creations recognise that ultimately the British presence and activity in India is rendered blackly comic by its futility (Sandison 82). To present the line "He could lie like an Oriental" out of this context, therefore, as evidence of the text's racism is to ignore what the book has to say about racial identity within the experience of colonial contact.--Leau 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kipling's Ethnic Background

On the page Anglo-Indian, I saw Rudyard Kipling's name in the section for "Notable people of mixed British and Indian ethnicity"...I was wondering if this is true since I can't seem to find it on his page? Thanks. C.Kent87 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It has since been removed. In the 19th century, the term "Anglo-Indian" meant "a British national living in India," the term for people of mixed British and Indian parentage being "Eurasian." In the 20th century, "Eurasian" changed to "Anglo-Indian." Maybe, someone read the Kipling page (childhood) section, which refers to his parents as "Anglo-Indian" (in the 19th century sense), and assumed it was meant in the 20th century sense. Sanjay Tiwari 03:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What about adaptations of Kipling's works?

I'm just wondering if there's any place where adaptations of Kipling's works can be mentioned on wikipedia. For example, there's a category devoted to Jungle Book films, but what about adaptations of his other works. For example, The Cat Who Walked by Herself? Esn 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


image

found this image ...

may need a rename though ... don't know why I named it "KiplingerSummerHome". J. D. Redding 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the name is not incorrect. The Kiplings went there every (British) winter, which was the South African summer, for about ten years. I remember reading somewhere that RK wanted the kids to have two summer holidays every year. The image looks good to me, although I have seen a clearer version somewhere. Others (like Dabbler) may want to weigh in. Sanjay Tiwari 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Sorry, I didn't see the "Kiplinger"! Sanjay Tiwari 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

unclear sentence

from the "Death and legacy" section:

Both readings may be wrong, Abrams of the Norton Anthology suggests it refers to the Bible, Romans 2.14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves,ie. are not as loving to the colonized, love being God's Law.

Can you somehow clarify the fragment in bold? Or at least provide an alternative, simplified version in the talk page for the sake of making translations into different languages.

Thank you - fullofstars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.240.105 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Effects of World War I

"Kipling was so closely associated with the expansive, confident attitude of late 19th century European civilization that it was inevitable that his reputation would suffer in the years of and after World War I." This is misleading in a number of ways. 1. While a supporter of British imperialism, Kipling, particularly in his poetry, warned against overconfidence. 'Recessional' (1887) is a famous example of this. 2. The declaration of war saw Kipling warning of the terrible carnage to come, an attitude that marked him out from the general run of (Georgian) poets and poetry which saw in the war opportunity for self-sacrifice and / or cultural redemption (cf Brooke, Grenfell, Sassoon). 'For All We Have and Are' (1914) warned both of the losses to come, and attacked the ruling classes of England for having brought about the war by their love of ease and their overconfidence. 3. Kipling, like many had been warning of the dangers of an expansionist Germany for years. It is likely that this would have increased his appeal to the reading public. 4. What evidence is there that his reputation suffered during the war? Amongst the majority of literary critics, Kipling had become deeply unfashionable during the Boer War. His general popularity, however, did not decline.Postrestant6691 (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Death and legacy

"Kipling kept writing until the early 1930s, but at a slower pace and with much less success than before.' 'Less success' is misleading. Sales may have fallen, but the general critical consensus of the last 40 years of so is that his last volumes Debts and Credits and Limits and Renewals contain some of Kipling's best short stories, and show a greater interest in exploring questions of healing, forgiveness, and redemption.

"Fashions in poetry moved away from his exact metres and rhymes." Kipling's poetry had probably been unfashionable since the 1890s; or better perhaps to say that his metres and rhymes were always unfashionable, even when pioneering. At the same time this sentence misleads as it erases the way in which Kipling's interest in the music hall pre-empted and shaped poets like Eliot's interest in jazz and the different voices of different classes. See David Bromwich, 'Kipling's Jest'

"Kipling's works fell far out of step with the times". Anne Parry has shown how, from his earliest collections such as Departmental Ditties Kipling's writings were radical in their dislike of the political and social status quo.

"However, this poem, and others, may be read as a deliberate satire by Kipling". This sentence should be removed. If possible, it is both very difficult and very unproductive to read 'The White Man's Burden' as satire.

"Even T.S. Eliot, a very different poet." Needs rephrasing, as Eliot was one of the earliest champions of Kipling among the literary classes.

"Nonetheless, Kipling is most highly regarded for his children's books." Greater discrimination about who is doing the regarding is necessary here. Among literary critics, Kipling has been increasingly well regarded since the mid 1980s, and not predominantly for his children's books. See the collections of essays by Bloom, Orel, and Mallet.

"In modern-day India, from where he drew much of [his] material, his reputation remains largely negative." See also, however, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, 'The Finest Story About India -- In English'. So is this comment justified? Similarly, how much of Kipling's material is drawn from India? Rather a modest part; Kipling is most remarkable for his range of subject matter. Postrestant6691 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

Congratulations to all those who painstakingly battled to write this article, keeping it informative, well-written and neutral in spite of vandals, sectarian critics, and well-meaning enthusiasts. Having consulted the history of the article, I find it amazing that they should have succeeded so well. I have, however, two suggestions, which may or not be helpful.

  • It seems to me that some of the information which was added anyhow at the end of the article, like the svastika bit, should be edited, moved up and incorporated into Kipling's biography. After all, this passage reflects concerns about the situation in Europe in the pre war period, at a time when nazi supporters existed in the UK (see British Union of Fascists, so any effort to distantiate himself or his work from the nazi should properly be given the same consideration as his taking sides during the Boer war, or his pro-war and then anti-war stance before and after WWI.
  • In the discussion above, some people wish there was more about Kipling's style. I know V. Woolfe wrote at least twice about him, in a Room of One's Own : So with Mr Kipling’s officers who turn their Backs; and his Sowers who sow the Seed; and his Men who are alone with their Work; and the Flag — one blushes at all these capital letters as if one had been caught eavesdropping at some purely masculine orgy. The fact is that neither Mr Galsworthy nor Mr Kipling has a spark of the woman in him. Thus all their qualities seem to a woman, if one may generalize, crude and immature. They lack suggestive power. And when a book lacks suggestive power, however hard it hits the surface of the mind it cannot penetrate within. The other reference, which unfortunately I am unable to quote, is a review in which she, very reluctantly, acknowledges Kipling's supreme crafsmanship with words. I suppose it's a piece she wrote for the TSL. It's an interesting one because she frankly admits she hates Kipling and everything he stands for, and yet as an artist cannot find fault with his art. She then quotes a sentence by Kipling and dissects it to show why she thinks it is perfect. --Anne97432 (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

South Africa: 1898 or 1899

The article states "In early 1898 Kipling and his family travelled to South Africa . . .". An anonymous editor has replaced "1898" with "1899", without giving any reason. Following a brief Google search, leaving aside any pages which are clearly quoting Wikipedia, I have been unable to find any source which gives the date as 1899. (There are a few pages which make vague statements to the effect that Kipling was in South Africa for a while in 1899, but do not specifically state that it was in 1899 that he travelled to S.A.) On the other hand there are several sources which state that he set out for South Africa in 1898; for example The Classic Encyclopedia and The Literature Network. If anyone can produce definitive evidence I shall bow to it, but in the absence of anything better it seems to me that the change is unwarranted, so I have reverted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

racism and irony

I think the parts of the article which say taht the racist bits of his work could be ironic are too vague. You would need extensive evidence from outside his fictional writings to maintain this position. Otherwise it sounds too much like pecial pleading - I like him so he can't be racist etc. He certainly was racist, the main defence he had was that racist views were extremely dominant at the time..Johncmullen1960 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling's marriage to Caroline (Carrie) Kipling, nee Balestier

I would be interested to find out more about their relationship and maybe have a section on this. I included some information in the Bateman's, Burwash, Sussex section. It seems that, from Kingsley Amis's perspective, Kipling was rather stifled (as he felt himself with his wife at the time). Can anyone shed any further light on this? Ivankinsman (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai - Bombay

What is the convention? The place's official name is Mumbai. Has been officially for the past 15 years. There are no other places of the same name to create confusion. I don't wish to go into a edit war here. What are Wikipedia rules regarding names and conventions while naming them? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also why British India, this term is usually used by Pakistani's while refering to areas now in Pakistan? Is the label British some kind of mark of former ownership of India by Britain? Is it necessary? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't get yourself in a fuss, on this article we have agreed to use the term Bombay because that was the name of the city for several centuries, is most familiar in the non-Indian world and the name that Kipling himself used, but the name is linked to the Mumbai article so people who go there will quickly find out that the city is now known officially as Mumbai. Please note, calling people who still use the old name "stooges" does not endear you to those who believe that we should treat everyone with respect here on Wikipedia.

The term British India is used because it links to the historical time period when the country was still ruled by the British as opposed to the modern republic. It is not a claim of ownership, but a historical descriptor as in the Maurya or Mughal Empires (neither of which names indicate that the Mughals or Mauryas have any modern claim to rule India), except that India was only part of the British Empire. Please understand that even the British editors here aim to provide useful and relevant information and not make territorial claims based on Wikipedia articles. Dabbler (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. You have reverted to British India which is a bad identifier, there was no other India, except if you call the territories like Puddicherry as French India and Goa as Portuguese India. European prefixes were used in Africa etc. when European countries split spoils up into British, French etc. Does Gandhi's biography mention that he was born in British India? He too was born around the same time.
  2. You write we have agreed, you get offended with the word stooges, and are quick to express your indignation. But when I get offended with the use of Bombay I am not allowed to express my feelings.
    1. Mumbai is the name it was always called in its two major languages as long as it existed, Marathi and Gujarati.
    2. It is the official name in English too since about 15 years.
    3. You claim that Mumbai is not very well known, but Mumbai got 50 million[6] results in Google and Bombay 25 million.[7]. Please also note that on the first page of Bombay's search results, the first result is to Mumbai, and the second to the film Bombay, the third one to Bombay brands the fourth to Bombay and Co. the fifth to Bombay Stock Exchange, all entities with Bombay in their name and not the city Mumbai.
  3. My remark was Is the label British some kind of mark of former ownership of India by Britain? Is it necessary?, how can that be constructed as an insinuation of a territorial claim? The former British ownership of India is a fact. But need India carry it on its fore head, 62 years after independence?
  4. Also the stooges remark was not about Britishers as they have a right to be patriotic Britishers as much as Indians have a right to be patriotic Indians.
  5. The point is not what your rational behind your use of the terms British India or Bombay is but how it is perceived, by Indians. Stooges is a fact as much as India-British Colony is.
  6. This is an important discussion, especially since, Kipling has been in very polite terms called Prophet (some one less polite would have used the term Devil) of British imperialism.
  7. My perception is that the terms are used in apology, denial and justification of a period of Indian history some commentators liken to the Holocaust.[8]
  8. I suggest that the terms Bombay and British India be taken off and the terms Mumbai and the British Colony of India be used, or just India. Except where they appear in quotations.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. I reverted the term to "British India" because the article name is British Raj which I think is less understandable to most non-British and non-Indian people.
  2. The term "British India" is descriptive of a historical time period when Kipling lived. He did not live in modern independent India and he did not live in Mauryan India. He lived in a specific period of time and it is appropriate to use that descriptor when referring to it even 60 years after an independence that occurred more than ten years after he died.
  3. As I said, Mumbai is the current name and the word Bombay is linked there, but if you search all biographies and writings about Kipling and his own writing, the word "Mumbai" will not exist until very recent times. We have had extensive edit wars about Bombay and Mumbai and in the end it was a consensus of the active editors that Bombay be used.
  4. Even Indian editors who use the word Bombay have the right not to be abused and called "stooges". Now you are compounding the offence by suggesting they are not patriotic. Please respect your fellow editors regardless of your personal feelings and point of view.
  5. This page has been subject to extensive discussion and editing by many people of all origins. I f you have a concern, it is best to use the Talk pages and please try and discuss your suggested changes but also please try and understand why we have come to the consensus we have before assuming that we are all trying to revive the British Empire and in some manner deny the existence of modern India.
This is an article about a historical person who lived in a different time from now. His views on India and Indians are quite complex and he obviously respected many aspects of India, its people and culture while also subscribing to views which would not be appropriate in today's times. Please try and see it from a Neutral Point of View and not only from that of a modern Indian who has justifiable patriotic pride in his great country. Dabbler (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My concerns are very technical and matter of fact, what does British India convey, and what is the Wikipedia convention on place names? I am sorry a stray word in the edit summary, allowed me to slip into this moras. The word British India is used by Pakistanis to convey the suggestion that India is only as old as 62 years, and there was no India before that. Please go through the Pakistan based articles on Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be a very country specific usage, which I as neither a Pakistani nor an Indian, had never heard of before. The word India has been in the weatern languages for thousands of years it is a Latin word, probably derived from the Indus river. It was mostly used to describe the whole sub-continent.
There is an argument to be made that India as a unitary entity did not exist until 1947 as it was always divided up into different kingdoms speaking different languages. Even the British never created a single entity of India, that was an achievment of the post-Independence Indians.
British India is the most common usage I have heard here in North America (and I think in the UK too) to refer to the historical period when India including the parts that were separated at independence to form Pakistan (East and West) were directly ruled or strongly influenced despite nominal indendence, by the British. Dabbler (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
  1. Would somebody born in France during the Vichy regime be called born in German France?
  2. India is like the United States of Europe, now called the EU, the adjective Indian is a little like European, there are as many nationalities as there are in Europe perhaps and as many languages and sub-cultures. The difference is that the many sub-nationalities decided that the political entity that was inherited from the state of former colonisation was worth maintaining, just as many independent European nations come together under one banner, in the 20th century. The difference between United States of Europe and India is that the people made India and not the politicians and bureaucrats, and so it has so far stood the test of time, unlike USSR, unlike Yugoslavia, UAR, and many others and unlike Pakistan, formed as a result of paranoia and megalomania incited by British vested interests, which is disintegrating, already having lost about half its population in 1971, regardless of US support of rape and murder and sending its 7th fleet to support the atrocities. [9]
  3. The external boundaries of this entity (you are wrong) are inherited from its former colonial status, and the partition. Except in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, where large areas are under illegal Pakistani occupation, some of these areas have been illegally ceded to China, abetted by Anglo-American axis.
  4. British India is an inappropriate use in this article just as Bombay is.
  5. I think we will need to wait for fairness on this matter perhaps until someone perhaps like Mittal steps in here.
  6. I have nothing to add. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say German France for 1940-44 but I do say that someone born in Britain when it was part of the Roman Empire in 300 AD, was born in Roman Britain. Dabbler (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bombay, British India" is the appropriate,, non-anachronistic term for Kipling's birthplace. At some point in its body the article can use the construct "Bombay, now Mumbai," to inform any readers for whom the wikilink doesn't suffice, but when talking about events during Kipling's lifetime, Bombay should be the preferred name. The one exception being the reference to "J J School of Art in Mumbai" in the Reputation in India section, which correctly uses the name, Mumbai. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot to archive this page?

Does anyone have any objection to setting up MiszaBot to archive this page automatically? It is getting pretty large and many of the posts are years old. Dabbler (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Shimgray | talk | 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. But apparently it was down for a day or two as I was setting it up and so I couldn't see if I had done it correctly! Dabbler (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kipling's Association with Camp Mowglis

At the turn of the last century, Elizabeth Ford Holt traveled north from Boston to establish a summer camp for boys in New Hampshire. She had written to Rudyard Kipling and obtained permission to use names from his Jungle Books at the camp. In 1903 she purchased the Barnard Farm on the shores of Newfound Lake and founded Camp Mowglis for Boys. The buildings at Mowglis carry names from the Jungle Book such as Toomai, Baloo, and Akela and many aspects of the Mowgli stories are woven into camp life and traditions.

Mr. Kipling maintained an interest in the camp throughout his life, and several of his letters are preserved there. He also instructed Mrs. Holt on how to pronounce Mowglis ("Mow" sounds like cow, and "glee"), and how to pluralize the name of Mowgli, the boy character in the Jungle Books, by adding a silent "s"

The camp developed into a place where many boys have spent the summer learning and growing. In the spring of 1925 Mrs. Holt passed the "school of the Open" to her long-time Assistant, Alcott Farrar Elwell. "The Colonel" ran Mowglis for 27 years; The next two directors, Mr. Darwin P. Kingsley, and Mr. John C. Adams ran the camp for five tears each. !n 1962 the Holt-Elwell Memorial Foundation was established to acquire the camp and insures the continuity of the program as a non-profit institution.

From www.mowglis.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccwalbridge (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

photo "Kipling in South Africa"

The photo "Kipling in South Africa" seems fake. Does it matter any if it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.129.242 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original. It doesn't look obviously fake to me - it looks a bit weird to modern eyes, but it seems reasonably consistent with the way you got cheapish plate printing then. Shimgray | talk | 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Examine the length of Kipling's left leg from the knee down and then the right leg of the gentleman on the left. Unless Kipling was very small his leg is too short when compared to the height of the table or the length of the other gentleman's leg. Also, the shadows cast by the chair legs and the gentleman's leg converge on a light source which is closer than the camera -- I know that was possible but this one looks like it should be in the photo (and blinding the camera). I think there was some cut and paste (the chair doesn't look real). But, does it matter anyway? If it does then it makes fakery more likely, if it doesn't matter then why would anyone do this?

Where is mention of his son?

The death of Kipling's son in WWI is mentioned, but no mention of the date or location of his birth. This makes this very incomplete. User:71.252.195.163 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

British or English?

There have been a couple of recent changes and reverts...it sounds like we need to discuss this. I thought "British" looked better than "English", given his association with the empire rather than just England. Bluewave (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of course are true. But like you, I have always thought of him as a British writer. His poetry especially documents the British Empire. User:Angelcynn reckons that "It's documented he recognised himself as English", but I think we need to be sure that he thought of himself as English rather than British to make this change.   pablohablo. 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with British. Given that he was born in India, it would be pedantic to specify exactly which part of Britain he was associated with. Especially as his mother's maiden name was MacDonald. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The User:Angelcynn account seems to be a very new creation with a single aim to change links from British to English or at least that is what all the User contributions so far have been. Dabbler (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

- Hello, yes I am new to this, don't rightly know what I'm doing to be honest, so any tips would be gratefully received. Changing links from British to English is not a sole aim of mine. I do however feel the English people get a bum deal in general from platforms such as this, I'm English, myself. My feelings on Kipling would attest to the fact that no matter what part of the world the Empire had taken at the point he was born, doesn't change the fact he was an Englishman. Just as every Indian born in British India is not English or Scottish, or "British". Moreover, he would have always described himself as English, as people still did then. Calling one's self British, I would argue is a modern phenomenon. He was English and had an Anglo-Asian upbringing. He wrote of the "English Flag" "Winds of the World give answer! They are whimpering to and fro, And what should they know of England who only England know?" Please notice he doesn't say Britain and he actually calls the Union Flag the English Flag. In "The English Way" he says “Greater the deed, greater the need, Lightly to laugh it away, Shall be the mark of the English breed, Until the Judgement Day!” and in "Kitchener’s School" he writes, “For Allah created the English mad – the maddest of all mankind!” So if a man thought of himself as English, was characteristically, culturally and scientifically English, what right do you lot have to posthumously decree him as otherwise? Angelcynn (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple of points.
  • I don't know how Kipling "would have" described himself, not what he wrote in his poems. He wrote plenty about India too. I would be interested to know how he did describe himself.
  • One of the other articles you have changed, William Wilberforce, is a Yorkshireman. He would have described himself as such, and could be so described in his article. Or indeed as a native of Hull.
  • Nobody's "posthumously decreeing" Kipling as anything other than what he was.
  • Whaddaya mean "you people?"   pablohablo. 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no because Yorkshire isn't a constituent nation or an ethnicity, is it? It's a county. So to attribute a county or town as a persons nationality/ethnicity would be distinctly erroneous. You know a lot of laws in the UK are now governed from Brussels, but we would not describe ourselves as Belgian or even European first and foremost. Can you find any literary evidence to suggest he saw himself as British? Angelcynn (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, I am curious how Kipling defined himself or was defined by his contemporaries. He might well have described himself as Anglo-Indian as that was a common contemporary term for some one of British ancestry who was born and lived in India. Nowadays that would not be the correct term as it has been redefined to mean people of mixed European and Indian ancestry. You have just as cavalierly posthumously decided from a selection of his writings that he was "English" but what someone writes in a poem or other artistic work may not reflect his inner convictions about himself. If you find an official document where he defines himself or was officially defined as "English" then you would have a much stronger case. As it has been pointed out his mother's maiden name was Macdonald which makes him at least half Scottish by some measures. Dabbler (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you visit his mother's wiki page, you'll see that she was in fact English, herself. So he isn't half Scottish at all, more totally English in fact. It does annoy me that less important individuals are somehow allowed to be classed as English, but people that irrefutably changed the world - oh, they must be British. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me and massively inaccurate. England is a constituent country, which is fact. England is also the country named after the English people, the people that are genetically and characteristically English. Kipling was one of those people. He was not British. What is British? Do you think just because there was a union and an empire it automatically changed the character of the people into a new entity? Although this topic can be a deeply personal one, of that there can be no doubt. It is also deeply factual, these facts people would rather ignore. I doubt he would have described himself as Anglo-Indian either, although I would rather this than the British tag, it does seem more accurate to me. I agree it is an interesting subject and it really should be discussed in more depth. Although what I've presented isn't decisive proof, it's more than we have to the contrary. Why would he refer to the English and England so much if he saw himself part of this new Britishness? Surely Britain would filter into his work through his inspirational thoughts and feelings. I'll leave you with a little known Churchill quote (he is also wrongly classed as British) "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" Sir Winston Churchill. Angelcynn (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You lost me there with the "new Britishness" - what's new about it?   pablohablo. 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think User:Angelcynn has heard of NPOV and the references to British are very insulting. Many of us have mixed English, Scots, Welsh and Irish ancestry and do not consider ourselves bound by his petty intranational boundaries. My ancestry is British and I am as proud of that as any Englishman who does not know of his Scots or Welsh ancestors is of his Englishness. Dabbler (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- I would say it as new, even today. I mean seeing as though people have been describing themselves as English since before the 7th Century, even before the creation of England itself. We're talking about the same peoples here. Just because the government assign a convenience on a land, it does not make the people of that land different. They live, think, eat, in the same way they did before, they live under the same laws, worship at the same churches, write about the same places, influenced by the people before them. I mean using the same logic as calling someone British you would probably soon have to start describing people as Belgian or European, as in my previous point. We both know that will never happen, which, in my view, makes the naming people as British all the more erroneous as a credible national and ethnic grouping, instead of what it should be which is a collective term such as 'European'. Angelcynn (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- Dabbler - you can see yourself as whatever you like, that is your right as a free man, (note many Englishmen such as Wat Tyler have died to get you that right in England and the free world). But it is you who is being quite offensive, in dismissing my own (and perhaps Kipling's own) nationality so quickly. I think we should stay on topic and not get too personal with this. Angelcynn (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Kipling - In December 1902 in a letter to his friend Ryder Haggard, Kipling called England “the most marvellous foreign country” where he “had ever been”. Dabbler (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- So note he does not mention Britain, but England. He's writing in irony at living in England, so perhaps he was known by his contemporaries as being something like Anglo-Indian as mentioned by Dabbler before..? This does not suggest what he thought of himself as, other than the fact that he doesn't describe England as Britain. If he's writing to people using the word England, then you would assume that this word was the status quo at that time.. and so would naturally assume 'English' as the corresponding nationality was also the status quo..? Angelcynn (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires references for contentious items, not original research or assumptions. In other words, documented statements by Kipling or other authorities that he was "English" as opposed to British. I think that as English is a sub-set of British and is sometimes used for the whole, it can be shown that he was British. We are just asking you to kindly provide documentation that he was specifically English. Unfortunately Anglo-Indian has a modern meaning that would cause confusion so that usage was discussed and abandoned here years ago. No one has heretofore been able to demonstrate his specific Englishness, we have compromised on the word British which was used by Kipling to describe the people in India, the Empire and Crown and the troops he knew. His son served in the Irish Guards but I am not arguing that he was Irish. Dabbler (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

- The compromise of British seems a harsh one if he describes only the British Army as British, (which is the correct term, as it is a collective term) everything else he seems to mention about the people and place seem to be using the words English and England. I sort of take your point that there needs to be documentation though. It saddens me a great deal, this. No one would dare question if Robert Louis Stevenson (who was also a Victorian author) wasn't Scottish, for example, even though he may not have personally expressed himself as Scottish. You wouldn't see the word British anywhere near his page (I haven't even looked, I just instinctively know). I'll see if I can find some references when I have some time. Angelcynn (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rudyard Kipling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rudyard_Kipling/Archive_1&oldid=1089895263"