Talk:Kubla Khan

message: I agree entirely with the two comments below,  The explication should be cut, since its purely opinion and adds no information about the poem.
SiefkinDR (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long and explication not needed

message: This article is several times as long as long as the poem. "one could as well, methinks, wring a flood froma a damp clout!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnopomp (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long

message: Kubla Khan is described as a Chinese emperor. Not true. Getting rid of that statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.14.92 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Kublai Khan (the man the poem is titled after, even thought it is spelled differntly) was an emperor of China.  He took control of of northern China in 1271 and finally southern China in 1279.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.33.28 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: There's a semantic issue here: does "Chinese emperor" mean "an emperor who ruled China" or "A Chinese person who ruled an empire"? 71.245.188.249 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  chinese emperor? 

message: Why not put the full text of the poem here instead of an external link? Since it was published in 1816 there shouldn't be a copyright issue? RedWolf 17:51, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
:See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Basically, an encyclopedia article on a piece of literature should not be a copy of that piece of literature, but rather be some sort of information about that literature. And furthermore here on Wikipedia the poem would be fully editable, so how could one tell whether that's what Coleridge really wrote? You'd have to refer to an off-Wikipedia copy of the source material anyway, to do that. Bryan
::As quoted in WP:NPS,  "Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias".  Now Kubla Khan is fairly long, but having it side-by-side with the article infinitely increases the overall understanding of the text--Also, when the length of the article increases, the poem will not overwhelm the page.  Let's put it back.  AdamBiswanger1 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it is worth, I agree that the full poem could be included, as per the practise with anthems and the like. The poem is one of the most famous around. How many lines precisely is it. If it is less than say 50 lines, I definitely think it should be in the article. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Including the poem

message: This article seems to condemn the man. Why the tone of disbelief? Did Coleridge have a reputation for dishonesty? Or is it just a reaction to his drug addiction? The phrase "Coleridge claimed" apears twice in the article. As does the phrase "This claim seems unlikely". What motivation would Coleridge have to bend the truth. It seems narrow minded to assume that "A Vision in a Dream" is a reference to a "dream" in the literal sense. Did Coleridge explicitly state that he was sleeping? Please elucidate.
:I'm also confused by the tone of disbelief. I don't think it's warranted.Wightpants 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a awhile since I've dipped into the Coleridge scholarship, but yes, there are problems with dishonesty. A substantial passage or two in "The Biographia Literaria" had been plagiarized.Bill 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of disbelief

message: I've removed the reference to Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency". The poem used in that book is actually The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.Wightpants 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, both poems feature in the book. I've put the refernce back in. :S Wightpants 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently" 

message: I've reinstated the use in popular culture section, because the rather large revision was not discussed, and some popular references have returned now, so it would be 'unfair' to include only these and not others. -- C mon 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the subsequent discussion (below) I've re-deleted it.  The remaining section added no value to the actual topic of the poem.  Ideally the article could have more analysis or history of the poem itself, not subsequent references in miscellaneous trivia.--MartinezMD (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: Sorry but this page seems of little value. There is no significant discussion, explanation or elucidation of the poem. It appears to be merely a depository for tabloid infotainment trivial popular culture references. Worthy of an encyclopedia entry? Not in any way in my opinion. Trash it all and start again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.189.130.13 (talk • contribs) .
:You're welcome to rewrite the article from scratch if you feel it's necessary. You can do it at your user page or wherever (ask me if you need a page created). —Keenan Pepper 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with 84.189.130.13 on this. The "In popular culture" section has got way out of hand, it occupies over half the article. What's the point? Kubla Khan is one of the most famous poems in the English language, so of course it is referenced in popular culture, but there's no need to list every single video game or pop group that uses the word Xanadu! How about moving the entire section to a separate page? --Auximines 10:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that seasoned Wikipedians tend to remove what they call "trivia" sections, or sections which cite the article subject in popular culture.  I strongly disagree with this.  The irony can be seen  if you look at the linking article Person from Porlock.  This person is a tiny mention in Kubla Khan, yet its influence has been such that its article is longer than Kubla Khan!  There must be more ways to expand this article:  I was once in a music class where the teacher digressed for about 15 minutes to explain the complex symmetries inherent in the first paragraph - how come there's no discussion of that? -- kosboot (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point of this page?

message: I removed the extensive section of references to the poem in popular culture. There is no value to such a section; as has been mentioned above, this poem is quite famous and frequently referenced. It took up half the article. If any of the trivia should be kept, it should be incorporated into the article rather than a list.--Cúchullain t/c 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And until then, keep the section unreadable?.. List is at least more comprehensible than solid text. --kAtremer (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a prose encyclopedia, not a list of random trivia. There are situations when an embedded list can be useful (see WP:EMBED) but naming off trivia is not one of them. If you think the prose can be improved, improve it, but converting it to a list is inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia references

message: The link to the full-length text of the poem appears to be a link to a university library viewable only to those with access privelages. I dont want to remove the link yet -- does it work for anyone else? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link works fine for for me - takes me directly to the poem.Hifalcon (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the links work perfectly for me Ged UK (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work for me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.213.67 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link

message: I've removed this text from Xanadu which appears to be contradicted here.
-----
The reported splendour of Xanadu later inspired Samuel Taylor Coleridge to write his great poem Kubla Khan and caused Xanadu to become a metaphor for opulence. Xanadu is remembered today largely thanks to this poem, which contains the following often quoted lines:
(poem)
Coleridge used artistic license with his poem, and few aspects of the description are in evidence at the actual site.  The author claimed that his composition was suggested by a line in Purchas His Pilgrimage.
---
MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from Xanadu

message: I wonder if anyone has remarked on the somewhat paradoxical juxtaposition of xanadu which is in the orient, with the river alph, which is according to conventional esoteric tradition definitely occidental? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradoxical locus 

message: I just merged the longer work from :simple:User:Ottava Rima/Kubla Khan.  The original comments and sources seem to be included in that longer article.  –SJ+ 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  update from Ottava Rima 

message: The unsourced statement in the lead that the manuscript is on display at the British Museum is probably incorrect: most of the museum's books and manuscripts were moved to the newly-founded British Library in, I think, the 1990s. The assertion needs support from a recent source, which I have been unable to find. Celuici (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah it was just flat wrong, the thing is deffo in the British Library. I've corrected it, with ref to British Library website.  twl_corinthian (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kubla Khan manuscript error 

message: AndyJSmith is quite right  to correct  the name of the Purchas book from 'Pilgrimage' to 'Pilgrimes', and thank you for doing that;  but I believe that as a result you are misquoting Coleridge, who had the title wrong. Can you give the correct quotation from Coleridge,  and then note in parenthesis that that he had it wrong?  I would hate to see Wikipedia editing Coleridge's words, even if they're wrong.  Thanks for your good work!
SiefkinDR (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilgrimes or Pilgrimage 

message: I'm not sure (a) why the title of the article is italicized or (b) why the full title of the poem (including subtitle) is not given in the lead sentence.  According to MOS:QUOTETITLE, titles of short poems are not italicized but instead are set off in quotes.  As "Kubla Kahn" is not an epic poem like the Iliad or Paradise Lost, but is of comparable length to most other short poems and songs, the italics are improper here.  I've traced the faulty change to this edit by User:Sj back in June 2010, which, apparently, nobody ever bothered to challenge.  I respectfully propose the article title italics be removed, the poem title be quotated in the article rather than italicized, and the lead be revised to give the full title of the poem as "Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment". Robert K S (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title should not be italicized ([[MOS:QUOTETITLE]]) 

message: Is this an example of orientalism, and are there references to cite showing that?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orientalism]]

message: I had a two-semester graduate course on English Romantic Poetry from Earl Wasserman at Johns Hopkins in 1964-65. Keats was half of one semester. I don’t remember his words, but I came away with the clear impression that the poem is full of erotic images, primarily of the female genitals. The sacred river, through caverns measureless to man, to a sunless sea: the vagina. Surrounded by fertile ground and incense-bearing trees. The chasm slanted down the hill... a savage place! Holy and enchanted. Fast thick pants, a mighty fountain erupts, producing the sacred river, that runs to the sunless sea. And then it’s connected with violence!
Also, that the poem is complete, that the interruption by the person from Porlock was, and there’s a reference in the article on him, fictitious.
I am in no position to say if there is anything to this, as 1965 ended my study of English literature. But it has stuck with me. deisenbe (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on sexuality 

message: There is a lot of very excellent information in this article, but I can't help but feel it is shortchanged by a confusing organization and redundancy. Surely the "Theories about the preface and writing" section belongs with the "Writing" and "Publication" sections? "Sources" and "Sources – Purchas and Marco Polo" should not be so far apart? I also think the best information (e.g., some of the great comparisons to the Crewe manuscript) would shine more clearly if things were cut down to be more concise. I'd like to start putting on organizing and condensing this article, looking at the Featured Articles Ode on a Grecian Urn and The Raven as models. I'm currently imagining a structure something like this:
# Composition and publication <-- could use a better title, but I think "Background" is too vague
## Composition (incorporating sections on Writing, Crewe manuscript, Theories about the preface and writing
## Publication
# Influences (incorporating all the stuff about sources, and probably adding some mentions of, e.g., Romanticism, orientalism, etc.)
# Poem
## Synopsis 
## Key images (incorporating discussion of the river, the maid, and mount Abora)
# Style
# Major themes (incorporating discussion of the poem's meaning, probably drawing on some things in "critical response")
# Reception (aka "Critical response")
## During Coleridge's lifetime
## Nineteenth century
## Twentieth century
## Contemporary
I think many bits are currently in the wrong place, eg, the first sentence of "Critical response" is "According to some critics, the second stanza of the poem, forming a conclusion, was composed at a later date and was possibly disconnected from the original dream." -- but that has nothing to do with the response to the poem, it belongs in the "composition and publication" section. Other parts of the "Critical response" probably belong as analysis of the poem. So I think putting things into this structure will reveal a lot of duplicated information; removing those duplications will improve the article substantially.
I hesitate to make such major structural changes to such a well-established and trafficked article on my own, however. Are there arguments for other ways of organizing, or for not re-organizing? Should I revise in draftspace rather than the article mainspace, and then see if the new version is an improvement? Or is it better to do it "in public" and gradually so others can evaluate each change? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is proving to be a fairly involved task, making it difficult to leave the article always in an attractive state for "live" readers, I am undertaking revisions in my userspace, where I invite contributions and revisions from anyone who is interested! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finished the first "section" of my draft (the composition & publication) and it seemed sufficiently improved over the mainspace article, and sufficiently self-contained, that I've amended the article here. It was a BOLD series of cuts but I think all of the most important information is still there -- I moved some pieces to the Person from Porlock and (new) Crewe manuscript articles. Statements which were unsourced in the original are still unsourced (there's a limit to how much I can do at once!) so there's still plenty of improvement to do. I hope others will feel free to build on this. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 09:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking on the enormous task of making this article more useful and readable.  I think your changes work pretty well.  My one recommendation is that you move the section 'Sources - Purchas and Marco Polo' further up, ahead of "Theories about Meaning"  since it's very specific, well-sourced and easily verifiable, whereas "Theories about Meaning" is largely  speculative,  and extremely debatable. Keep up the good work!  SiefkinDR (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point! I moved it there because I didn't think it belonged in the "composition and publication" section and wanted to keep the sources together, but you're totally right that it's some of the higher-quality material here and it's exactly the kind of useful encyclopedic information that a reader will want to encounter much sooner in the article. The "other sources" aren't as strong but I think there's benefit in keeping things in a section together so I've moved them up as well for now. Thanks for the suggestion! If you have other ideas I'd be keen to hear them, or of course you can make them yourself. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I think you're doing a great job, the article is improving steadily.  I also think what you did with the poem is perfect;  it's very helpful  to have the poem right there so you can check it against the commentary.   Please keep up your good work!! SiefkinDR (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing (and condensing) the article 

message: Wow so many sexual themes in this poem; I did not know how to make note of it politely. Gonna go try to work it out on my own right now
Electricmic (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super sexy poem? or is this just me? 

message: Although I agree that the poem may have been too long to be quoted in its entirety, I think it would be valuable to restore the sidebox as you suggested. I find it quite informative and useful to include it directly in the article. And since the poem it is not that long and the box does not take up much space, I see no reason not to bring it back. Best regards, 92.34.133.162 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an acceptable suggestion.  Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, sounds good to me. The 1816 version is in wikisource here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added it back now. Best regards, 92.34.133.162 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore poem in side box 

message: I think the suggested pronunciation of the poem's title is unhelpful. An inspection of the rhymes shows that Coleridge almost certainly pronounced "Khan" as the English word "can."   The pronunciation guide suggests that Khan have the a of "father." One can say that this is "standard" now, but that is irrelevant ( "Kubla" is no longer the standard form either) and the guide merely distracts (and detracts) from the poetic effect of the work. It would be better to have no pronunciation guide at all. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clash of symbols 

message: The poem is usually published with Coleridge’s writings on how he composed it and why it wasn’t finished, right? I’m assuming that’s why the title for a 54-line poem is italicized. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italic