Talk:The Second Coming (poem)

Poetry Start‑class High‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion from vfd:

Template:VfD-SecondComing (this link is bad, but I can't figure out where the data is. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The full text of this poem is in the public domain (for the Wikipedia servers in the United States), because it was published before 1923. —Toby Bartels 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can some Yates scholars come in and clean up the mess that is posted here? Much of what is here reads as if Adam Smith and Tom Delay had written it posthumously.

Plagiarism

The first paragraph of "Origin of terms" is copied nearly verbatim from the SparkNotes on this poem (see the second paragraph of the SparkNotes on line, accessed 2007-04-30). Should it be rephrased, deleted, or cited? -- DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Jungs collective unconcious

'The "spiritus mundi" (literally "spirit of the world") is a reference to Yeats' belief that each human mind is linked to a single vast intelligence, and that this intelligence causes certain universal symbols to appear in individual minds. The idea is similar to Carl Jung's concept of the collective unconscious.'

This is totally WRONG. The collective unconscious is the shared human symbolic language that has evolved through millions of years of human experience and evolution, manifested in dreams primarily. It is not of a spiritual or metaphysical nature. This is a very poor and inaccurate comparison.

It's also insane.

Allusions

This section is way too long and needs trimming.--Lepeu1999 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another allusion that I thought appropriate to add was in Chimamanda Adichie's book "Purple Hibiscus" the starting line was ode to Chineau Achebe's book "Thing's Fall Apart", should that be added? -toks (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to start trimming this section down. It's way too long, has no organization whatsoever, and could basically go on indefinitely the way it is. While Things Fall Apart is significant and adds to the article, but the fact that part of the poem was quoted once on an episode of Babylon 5, in my opinion adds nothing to the article. In accordance with Wikipedia: Trivia sections, I'll try to keep what seems relevant. In Wikipedia in general, this is gettting out of hand. I've done very little editing so far, so any feedback/help is quite welcome. Punning (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the section is becoming unmanageably long and as per the Wikipedia: Trivia sections guidelines I'd like to remind everyone that

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

Thus while you might not find the fact that a reference to the poem appeared in a Babylon 5 episode relevant, it still belongs somewhere in the article for those who might find it relevant in their research pursuits.(GuileKing (talk))

There are probably thousands or tens of thousands of allusions to the poem in mailing list posts, YouTube comments, TV shows, web forum posts, plays, movies, books, and so on. The line should be drawn somewhere to prevent the "allusions" section from being thousands of lines long. Still, I think Babylon 5 is pretty culturally important, at least as TV shows go. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Beast

Please think through that the rough beast, or antichrist / old no. 666, is about and rising up. Who could this be? is that mark of the beast , the 666, clearly visible ? Yes it is , in plain sight , right in front of you all ... ! on the sides of the AC beast's head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.81.100 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, another cleanup in September. Like The Catcher In The Rye, this seems to be one of those "favourite band" articles where every use of the word "slouching" in every small-town band lyric is going to be added, and will need to be pruned. --66.129.135.114 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dag nabbit, that should have followed the "Allusions" section above. Apologies. --66.129.135.114 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to do here?

This is a really shitty article about one of the most important poems of the 20th century. But I really don't know what to do about it. What would make this a better article? Tell me, and I'll try. GPa Hill (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much agreed. Yeats commented on the poem extensively during his own life - perhaps some of his own comments should be included here? Mwahcysl (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about poetry articles, but maybe look at really good poetry articles and see what would be required to make this one more like them? There's a page on the poetry WikiProject's assessment of articles, and it links to the list of , of which a small number are about poems, such as The Raven. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. The Raven article is pretty fine. GPa Hill (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article revisions

I've moved the paragraph on the 'brazen beast' down to the Origin of terms section (and re-arranged this section to follow the order of the poem). I've trimmed the para on the phrase "Second Coming", as it had a few too many useless words, and the beast's "sense of purpose" seems like a pathetic fallacy. I trimmed the "gyre" para for clarity, and to indicate that Yeats did not invent the word; also to avoid asserting Yeats' special meaning for this particular use of the word, which I don't think a neutral article has the right to do, unless someone can produce a citation from the horse's mouth. I cut the critic Winters' quote from the intro, as it seems to me an opinion not obviously supported by the text. If anyone wants to bring it back, I suggest a new Critical interpretations section. - Eyeresist (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text= Perhaps the text of the poem should be removed to meet with style standards. Short poems, such as Haikus, can be added to articles, but the style guide suggests that longer poems should be linked to wikisoure or an alternative.Mrathel (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Allusions to section should probably be cut, with a series of links at the bottom of the page suggesting further reading. It amounts to an In Popular Culture section, which does not accurately describe the source text and should not be used to describe the work itself. The article is about the poem, not about how it has been used in other works, and the weight that the Allusion to section places on secondary work detracts from the article's assessments Mrathel (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I have made a few cuts on the connective trivia, which is what most the the items under the Alusions to list amounted to, see wp:trivia.I am sorry to anyone who wants to be sure that an article on one of the most important poems of the 20th century mentions his or her favorite TV show, but that information is not relevent here. If you would like to start an article called Yeats' Second Coming in Popular Culture, be my guest. That having been done, this article still needs works by credible sources, preferably literary criticism given the nature of the poem.I am going to put it on my todo list. If anyone would like to help, I would love to be of any assistance. Mrathel (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could safely remove the whole section if you ask me. Thanks for the work! GPa Hill (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I thought that the references to other pieces of literature, even though they are not necessarily criticism, do attempt to place the novel in a certain place in literature as a whole. I knew I was not overstepping my bounds on the pop culture references, but the literary ones I wanted to remove but could not entirely justify since they came close to discussing them poem. Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]