Talk:Do not go gentle into that good night

Why publish an item about a poem without providing the words? Pointless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9A0D:A201:F94E:19E:1B74:1246 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I second the motion. Just the poem would interest thousands more people than the rhyme structure. Curuwen (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Do not just mass delete an article.

There are many ways to help inform users that an article may be based on bias, be unreliable, requiring citation, etc. rather than mass blanking which can casues other problems. Please place citation requests through the article, or maybe go the WikiProjects listed in the talk page that may have a concern for the article and raise the question there. Deleting because 'it has no references' is a weak argument in Wikipedia as that leads way to the mass blanking of many important articles and leaves the door wide open to vandalism. Just post your concerns and allow others to deal with it. This article is in the sights of other editors, we know the problems and we will deal with it. But mass blanking causes the resentment of other editors and turns others off from trying to repair, as building from a stub can be demoralising. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The arguments you make above are irrelevant and have no basis in policy. You have made a lot of edits to this article over the past two years, so why haven't you sourced this material? This unreferenced and trivial content violates WP's Verifiability, OR, and NPOV policies, and as such it can be removed on sight. Which is exactly what I intend to do. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

These arguments are not irrelevant. In your opinion they are irrelevant, that is a different matter, and you have no greater strength of opinion than anyone else. You are placing your own interpretation on this. I have made several edits (lots is again your opinion) to the article over the last two years, but if you had examined my edits they were all to change other's wild or miss-skewed beliefs to this article to make the article more sane and less trivial. I do not need to cite any changes I make, in the same way any other editor to Wikipedia does not need to make a cite to their edits. I do cite articles that I edit (check the GA articles on my home page) but to just remove the 'in popular culture' section of the article misses the whole point of Thomas' popularity as one of Great Britain’s most important and accessible poets. If you are angry at this article, please show others where they can improve, mass deletion when vandalism is not involved is, in my opinion, lazy and unhelpful. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have cited policies that support my edits, you have not. There has been more than enough time and opportunity for this article to be referenced, and it has not been, therefore the unreferenced sections are going to be removed. They can be restored when sources have been found to back those claims. WP does not allow original research, which is what the "analysis" section is. The "popular culture" section is unreferenced trivia. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not understand why Wikipedia is struggling so hard to attract new editors? It is because members of our community decide that the 'rules' are so bloody important that we throw the baby out with the bath water. You have come across an editor with experience with the poet in question, but rather than think, 'maybe this person has a point and they genuinly wish to improve this article'; you have decided that your viewpoint, because it matches the black and white criteria of Wikilaw, is the only one that counts. Wikipedia is not about 'the rules' it is not about you, it is not about me. I have asked you not to delete the content as it creates a basis from which we can build this article (as much of what the previous editors have wtitten is actually correct if not referenced). You appear to have no desire to improve the article, I do. So stop deleting the content of this article. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have stated my reasons clearly, backed by policy, you have not. If you want the content to remain, you source it. It is really that simple. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article to prevent further disruption. I don't yet know what the dispute is about. Looking at the above, it appears that TheOldJacobite has serious concerns about the verifiability of some of the material, and is removing that material; while FruitMonkey feels that action is too drastic, and that concerns would be better off being highlighted and discussed. I'm going to have a look at the material in question - that is, the material that is being removed and then replaced in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• • OK, I've taken a look at the material which was removed. The material was the entire Analysis section, and the entire In popular culture section. Both sections are unsourced. The Analysis section contains material which attempts to provide explanations for the poem. Without reliable sources such explanations could be considered Original research. We don't know at this stage if it is OR. If the material is verifiable - that is, if there are reliable sources which can be found to support the statements, then it isn't OR. What the section needs is sources. I have tagged the section with {{Original research}} to draw attention to the fact that the section is contested, and that sources should be found. The In popular culture section details examples of where the poem has influenced other art-forms, such as music, tv, and films. This section requires sourcing to support the assertions, and I have tagged that section with {{Unreferenced}}. I have also moved the Don Henley sentence up from the references section to the In popular culture section where it belongs.
  • Seven days is a reasonable amount of time to find sources for both sections. Some editing will still remain even after sources have been found, though I hope that this dispute by then will have been settled.
  • I will unprotect the article to allow for editing to take place, though will replace with semi-protection for a short while as I see that some IP accounts have also been removing material because it is unsourced. Material which is appropriately sourced after seven days can remain, the rest I will remove myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

WP:FULL

The article has been fully protected due to an edit war. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time or may be indefinite. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on this talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons.

The protection has been put in place to prevent any further disruption while the dispute is sorted out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Father in the Army?

The article says: "Thomas watched his father, formerly in the Army.. " But there is no source to support this claim, so I have added a tag. If the army connection is true, one might perhaps (more) expect to find it mentioned in the main Dylan Thomas article. I wonder does anyone have a supporting source? If not, it has been suggested that this claim should be deleted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Text of the poem - Copyright

Would it be a copyright violation to put the entire text of the poem in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glubbdrubb (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the previous discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion was that it should not be included for copyright reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Poem appears to have been added to the page anyway. it appears to have been added just to talk about refrains, but that is still a violation of the copyright. 64.144.146.162 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That was indeed all six stanzas of the poem. I'm not sure the remaining pattern is really that useful without the text it explains. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

How is that that the removed poem constitutes a violation of copyright only here, and not here too? Drow (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The same applies there. It should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting image

[1] Seems to be in Chola Road, Bhopal. Or was in 2011, anyway. Is there a public domain free image anywhere?Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Legacy/ popular culture

In this edit, three examples of legacy/ popular culture were removed. What is the rationale for this removal? They are all well sourced, so I see no problem with keeping them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The popular culture references are ridiculous. Many are obscure and really unnecessary. Wikipedia can let users figure this out. They don't come here to learn the popular culture references. I don't even know what that is a category. It's not very encyclopaedic. 98.199.196.39 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is the work of Ceri Richards, supported by a link to the Tate, "ridiculous" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What criterion is used to delete "trivial mentions" as in this edit?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Weblink not working anymore

I believe the weblink 'Analysis by BBC' is not working correctly anymore. At least I cannot find any analysis on that page. I beliefe it should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/poetry_wjec/relationships/donotgogentle/revision/1/ instead. Does anyone disagree? Taitaku (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Could we have an explanation as to why the "Use in popular culture" section is a "ridiculously long and pointless trivia section"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you may. Firstly, it's more than twice the size of the remainder of the article. Secondly, it's mostly trivial references, typically to instances where other writers have referred in passing to the piece. Where this is not the case, the information should be incorporated properly into the article (adaptations, derived works, homages, etc).

Summary: the overwhelming bulk of the article comprises useless trivia, grossly unbalancing the article. --TS 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't tell us which is which, you just deleted the whole lot, en masse. Would you class the Igor Stravinsky piece and the Ceri Richards paintings as "trivia"? What criteria do we apply, or do we have to rely on your subjective personal opinion? Maybe we should use third party support from WP:RS as a yardstick? The number of edits here since Interstellar was released suggests that it's quotation there has had more impact on popular culture than nearly everything else. Part of your argument seems to be that the more references a work gets in popular culture the greater reason there is to delete any reference to them in the article. That seems somewhat contradictory. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivia, 2017 rehash

The article is so imbalanced that one would think that the use of the poem (or lines from it) in popular culture is more significant than the poem itself. The list as it stands isn't even close to comprehensive. (Where's Iggy Pop? Where's John Cale?) Maybe we apply WP standards of notability to determine what to include? A paragraph highlighting the most notable uses rather than a lengthy yet incomplete list, perhaps? JSFarman (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I know Iggy Pop is famous, but that's an advert for the Grey 10th Annual Music Seminar at Cannes? I'm not sure that Adweek has the same cachet as Interstellar. But quite agree with adding Cale - Words for the Dying already has its own article. It's a shame that his post at his own YouTube site, is no longer available. I'm not sure the one you have linked is copyright free? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are so correct about Iggy. I was a bit worked up because I was in need of info on the poem and looking for a proper Wikipedia article. Re: the video, my understanding is that we can use video in an external links section. Of course (like Iggy) I could be wrong.JSFarman (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Some editors, such as User:Fram, have rather strong views on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at your user page and saw there has been much discussion on the subject. (Also saw the Teddy suspended from the telephone wire, which is a frequent sight in Los Angeles.) Wikipedia should have a blanket license! (I know, not that simple.) JSFarman (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And I had always thought that was a washing line. Oh well, I won't be giving up my blanket that easily, license or no licence!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are my new favorite person.JSFarman (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That link was indeed a copyvio and is not allowed on a talk page (or anywhere on Wikipedia), so I have removed it. John Cale needs to be mentioned in the trivia section, as it is one of the best known (and best) adaptations of the poem. Half of that section can go though (that PhRMA campaign for starters). Fram (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JSFarman, you might want to see WP:YOUTUBE which says "While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page." etc. From now on you'll just have to say "that 5:50 video of John Cale - Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night posted on YouTube by ForARide on 29 Jun 2008" etc. Surprising that copyvio can last for nine years on YT. But I guess they have a "special agreement". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fram and Martinevans123, I removed the unreferenced instances of the poem's use and added John Cale. I will look for a ref for the Roseanne finale, as that seems significant. (Thanks for the entertainment Martinevans123!) JSFarman (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, JSFarman. (My hubris, alas) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gentle vs. gently

Why does Dylan use the adjective when he should use the adverb? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Because he's a poet? Maybe he thought it scanned better? But the most common explanation is that the word modifies the father, not the going. i.e. "Grammatically speaking, whereas 'gently' would modify the verb in the instruction "do not go...", 'gentle' governs the object of the exhortation, i.e. the father." One might argue that the word gentle can even be read as a noun there, i.e. the father himself. Compare this:

And this weak and idle theme,

No more yielding but a dream,

Gentles, do not reprehend:

If you pardon, we will mend:"

(written by some English bloke, at about Four O'clock, apparently). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps he was into Barbara Streisand and meant Yentl?

Do not go, Yentl, into that good night

But stay with me and hold me tight

We'll drink sweet cherry wine till morning light

Your rabbi father will get over it eventually I'm pretty sure

But good that I'm not the only one who noticed, thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha. I never thought of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Use in Christchurch Shooter's Manifesto?

Should the section 'Notable use in popular culture' be updated with the fact that the Christchurch shooter quoted the poem in its entirety in his manifesto? 人族 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this usage "popular culture". wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It was updated, by an anon IP editor here. I promptly reverted as unsourced. But then, when I saw there were numerous sources I restored it, together with a WP:RS source. But it's hardly "culture" and I'm pretty sure it's not "popular". So I'm not sure it really belongs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Criteria use in pop culture section?

I just cut the list down; it was out of control again. Mostly because editors were adding instances of the line being used once in the context of a film or a song. Criteria should be that it is more than the simple use of the lyric; it has to be more substantial use or independently noteworthy. Either that or we should add a separate list. File my edits under bold. And Martinevans123, come back! JSFarman (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Add analysis section with references?

An old version of this article had a analysis section. It was removed because it had no references.

I think an analysis section would improve the article, therefore I searched for potential sources: https://blog.prepscholar.com/do-not-go-gentle-into-that-good-night-meaning-dylan-thomas

However, I am not versed in this area, and don't know if this is a valid or good source. Could someone please have a look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMantis (talk • contribs) May 4, 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

This poem was written in 1951, and Dylan Thomas died in 1953. As such, this year will be the 70th anniversary of his death - as a result, his works will enter the public domain this year.

Am I correct in this, and as such should Wikipedia include the text when it does enter public domain? 2A02:C7C:CC5F:1700:6C78:9669:3806:296C (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently some people thought it was PD in 2022... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Should it be included? I don't think some publishing house owns it. Septembertank (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Septembertank, I can't imagine that it is actually in the public domain, unfortunately. You can read, for instance, [2] this thread and this article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Self contradictory

The opening section says that the poem being written about Thomas' father is just a suggestion, whereas the analysis section treats it as a fact. Duckduckgoop (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain

Am I correct in thinking that the poem can be included in the article on new year's day? His death (1953) + 70 is late 2023, so it gets 'rounded' to 2024, and he is listed on 2024 in public domain. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

70 years was 9 November 2023. Why is it rounded at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I vaguely remember that 70 years is counted from the end of the calendar year. I may be wrong though, so I'll try to find a source. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the author was born in the UK, the work falls under UK copyright law, which states that the material becomes PD 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies. (Source). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. So yes, it must be 1 January 2024. There are already plenty of audio versions of the poem being read on YouTube, including some by Thomas himself. Do these breach copyright? Or is it just the printed text that's forbidden (for another 40 days)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that counts as a reproduction, so yes, I believe that does breach copyright. In any case, there's only like a little over a month till the new year, so it's not that long of a wait. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Even the one by Sheeny from the National Theatre?? (comes with optional closed caption transcript, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That one has two copyright problems, actually. The work they are performing is copyrighted, and the video itself is copyrighted. They (presumably) obtained permission to perform it, so they won't be breaking any laws, but if we post it here by uploading it to Commons, then we would be violating the copyright of both Dylan Thomas, and the National Theatre.

However, we can include a link to that video, using Template:External media. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure why anyone would want to upload it to Commons. I suspect theatre companies perform Thomas's work all the time without asking permission, whether they post the results to YouTube or not. A link to Sheen's rendition might be a useful addition to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So should the article state "The poem entered the public domain on 1 January 2024", with a suitable source, as part of its history? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've just inserted the poem into the text. I think that's fine to add, so I'll add it in once I find a source. Happy new year! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the lead since there isn't a history section, with a source from Public Domain Review. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. Blwydden Newydd dda!