Talk:Rudyard Kipling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleRudyard Kipling is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 22, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
October 6, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Nationality[edit]

I don't like this description of the author as being "English". He was born in India to an English father and Scottish mother. I'm not sure how that qualifies Kipling as English? And as the article later says under "childhood" he himself considered himself "Anglo-Indian".

What gives you the right to challenge this man's assertion of nationality? I would suggest that "British Indian" might be more appropriate. Or at least "British." It certainly seems to me that is is quite wrong to label him as "English". John2o2o2o (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Kipling was a British subject as was everyone born within what was then the British Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
We've been round that bush some 18 months ago, see Talk:Rudyard_Kipling/Archive_2#Migration_status. Consensus at the time was that the Victorian usage of "Anglo-Indian" should not see current application in biography articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Alice Kipling (*nee Macdonald) was born in Sheffield despite her Scottish surname. Personally I would say that he was culturally English and British nationality.Dabbler (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
He was born in India, this means he was an Indian. Stop being a bigot. 2601:646:8D00:9C50:8CB9:F8D9:1631:C6E4 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Bigotry aside, I think you'll find that the law on British Nationality in 1865 did not allow for that possibility. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? 24.6.59.15 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Er... his nationality, perhaps? If you're not sure take a look at British Nationality Act 1772. JezGrove (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
In 1876 Indians outside of the Princely States became British subjects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.96 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(To: Elmidae, HiLo48, Chewings72 - possibly all the same person)

Please do not hijack Wikipedia for your own narrow-minded elitist agenda. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia deals only in facts and not in airy fairy abstract notions of identity. Most people accept that 'nationality' denotes the country of your birth, regardless of later adopted citizenship. Nationality is not the same as citizenship. As a general rule, if it can’t be proved, best not to write it.

As regards Kipling : Kipling was an English writer – false; Kipling was an Indian writer – true; Kipling was an English-language writer – true; Kipling was Indian - true; Kipling was British - false; Kipling was English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh - false; Kipling was a British citizen/subject – true; Kipling’s birth parents were British – false (not proven).

Therefore, Kipling was Indian and an English-language writer. So stop censoring facts.(Kenwikiman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwikiman (talkcontribs) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but we prefer to stick to the preponderance of verifiable sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nationality relates to culture and genetics: Link. What if Rudyard was born on a 747 to a beautiful stewardess and pilot in Bombay, the plane having to make an emergency landing for 10 minutes for the reason, before taking off again for destinations unknown? Lord Milner (talk)

The first Boeing 747 wasn't rolled out until 30 September 1968. But 30 December 1865 predates the Kitty Hawk flighs by about 38 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reputation in India[edit]

I really cannot remember how to do the insanely complex hieroglyphic keystrokes required for inline citations, so I can't directly correct the text, but it's unfortunate that the article is lying about Kipling in relation to Colonel (acting Brigadier) Dyer, the author of the Amritsar Massacre of 1919. Kipling was not a 'prominent supporter' of Dyer and did not call him 'the man who saved India', a phrase originated by the Morning Post newspaper. Nor did Kipling start the appeal for Dyer's retirement fund -- that was the Morning Post again. (And it wasn't a 'homecoming prize', as the article falsely claims; it was a retirement fund, because the army refused Dyer any further appointments, in other words sacked him. Dyer, broken by the knowledge of what he had done, did not live long to enjoy his retirement.) The Indian author Subhash Chopra, cited by the article, is however wrong to say that Kipling did not donate to the fund. He reportedly gave £10, out of a total of more than £26,000 raised. All Kipling said of Dyer was, 'He did his duty, as he saw it,' which, as I've mentioned before, is guarded and double-edged. Once again, see:- https://www.academia.edu/4297399/British_Reaction_to_the_Amritsar_Massacre_1919-1920

False claims made against Kipling by modern Indian nationalists need to be considered in light of the fact that the current Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, himself reportedly instigated the Gujarat riots of 2002, which killed at least as many people as the Amritsar Massacre. And Modi clearly does not suffer from the remorse that destroyed Dyer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to suggest a modified version of this section here? That paper certainly is a good source, and presumably at least as if not more reliable than the newspaper article currently referenced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejected Companion of Honour (CH)[edit]

This suggests he was appointed CH in 1917 without his consent, and then had to reject it. We say nothing about this in the article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's news to me, actually. I know he declined a knighthood in 1899 and in 1903, and the Order of Merit in 1921 and in 1924. Not saying it's untrue, but we'd need good sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, here it is. It's all in his letter to PM Bonar Law of 2 July 1917, but see particularly Note 1 for clarification (which also tells us he declined not 2 but 3 knighthoods, a KCB, a KCMG, and a KBE). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
(e/c)I think it's a tale that grew in the telling. Ned Sherrin's Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations (4th ed., 2008) says objecting to having been appointed a Companion of Honour without his consent: "How would you like it if you woke up and found yourself Archbishop of Canterbury?" and attributes it to "letter to Bonar Law 1917, sourced to Charles Carrington's Rudyard Kipling (1978). Turning to Carrington we find (pages 526-527) "And again, in spite of that [his warning Bonar Law that he would not accept a KBE], he received an official notification a few days later, that without his knowledge he had been appointed a Companion of Honour. This third time his temper was ruffled and he wrote to Bonar Law: "how would you like it if you woke up and found they had made you Archbishop of Canterbury?"".
The tale is told rather more fully, and less dramatically, in "Appendix B: Honours and Rewards" of Lord Birkenhead's Rudyard Kipling (1978). On 1st July 1917 (a Sunday) K received a letter from the Acting Secretary, Order of Companions of Honour, saying his name was on the list of those recommended to the King for the Order, and would he fill out and return a form. K wired the same day to say he had not been consulted and did not accept. He also wired Law to the same effect. Law telegrammed in reply, also on the 1st, "The notice sent to you is intended to ascertain if you wish it or not. If not, so reply, and that is the end of it. I did not know that list had been completed to the extent of sending out these notices or I should have stopped yours at least till I had communicated with you as I know your views". K wrote back to Law on the 2nd, pointing out that nothing in the Acting Secretary's letter indicated that it was not irretrievably settled. "How would you like to be waked up on a Sunday morning by a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Clerical Aid Society informing you that your name was among the list of Bishops that has been recommended to the King? Wouldn't you assume that the Archbishop of Canterbury had landed you at last into his fold [Law was of course a Presbyterian] and wouldn't you at once collaborate with me in a bill against the imposition of arbitrary honours on the King's loyal subjects?" Law wrote back on the 3rd "I would have written to you sooner but I have been excessively busy the last two days [he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House of Commons, effectively deputy PM, and Leader of the Conservative Party, and there was a war on you know] ... a quite different course has been adopted with regard to these Honours from that previously applied ... the preliminary notice has gone direct from the Palace instead of through the Prime Minister. I do not think that this is a good plan and it will not probably be adopted again..."
The wording given by Birkenhead is confirmed by Thomas Pinney's The Letters of Rudyard Kipling Volume 4: 1911-19 (1999) tho' with "and Swift MacNeil [an Irish Nationalist and therefore a humorously unlikely ally of K and Law] in a bill against the imposition of arbitrary honours on the King's loyal subjects?" after "collaborate with me".
So - no, he wasn't appointed CH. He was sent a poorly-worded letter following an administrative change, and he did not say "How would you like it if you woke up and found yourself Archbishop of Canterbury?". DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Vide the power of a well-stocked bookshelf. Much obliged! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elmidae: My pleasure, and thank you @JackofOz: for asking in the first place. I enjoyed looking that up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. The wash up is that the authorities wanted him to have a KCB, a KCMG, a KBE, a CH, an OM, and the Poet Laureateship. He declined all of them. That must be some sort of record. Perhaps a short section detailing the offers and his responses would be useful? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Archive version of current website?[edit]

Is there any good reason why the External links section entry for the Kipling Society points to a archive copy on the Wayback Machine? The website is flourishing and up-to-date.--Verbarson (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No idea - doesn't seem to make sense... I'll switch it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It was marked as dead by Zanimum in May 2020 and replaced with the archive copy by a bot. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Because...they changed from www.kipling.org.uk to www.kiplingsociety.co.uk at some point. It's easy to spot when I actually read my own post, but why read it when cut-and-paste lets me rush on without paying attention?--Verbarson (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)