This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slaughterhouse-Five article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days ![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2013. Further details are available here. |
Krisandra Johnson's article [1] provides gravity towards Vonnegut's compelling and absurd novel. War cannot be present without suffering and unfortunately the absurd is a byproduct of an individual's attempt to contextualize war. Billy Pilgrim is a prisoner of war as well as time from the narrative given bouncing through time yet discovering no solace. Johnson offers history of Vonnegut experiencing being captured during World War II contributing to Billy's visceral account of the war at varying degrees. Humane treatment can be neutered once power is forcefully given with no constraint. Vonnegut describes this within his novel while Johnson provides a detailed analysis of the phrase "So it goes" allowing the individual a retrospective inward gaze to themselves until truth is left. Death, especially at the hands of cruel men with stifled opinions of the world, proves to be inhumane and heinous. Therefore the nonchalant phrase of "so it goes" allows the reader to visualize a juxtaposed image of horrific treatment being received by men who would assumedly fight though their soul has been whittled to a numb. Sean.Robi733 (talk) 5:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
References
@Polinova: Here's the rule of thumb
The bottom line is that you need sources directly talking about Vonnegut and/or Slaughterhouse Five. Pulling sources talking about other things and then applying them to Vonnegut or the novel is synthesis and original research. This might be a good thing for secondary sources, but Wikipedia, like any other encyclopaedias, is a tertiary source where we repeat what secondary sources have already stated. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vonnegut repeats the incorrect claim that around 135,000 people were killed in the bombing, when in actuality the number is closer to 22,700.can't be attributed to Shortnews;
Vonnegut claims the bombing killed more than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which is also false. 70,000-80,000 were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima.can't be attributed to Hiroshima Day Committee; etc. because they don't mention Vonnegut or Slaughterhouse Five. DonQuixote (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vonnegut repeats the incorrect claim that around 135,000 people were killed in the bombing [cite the source that states this here], otherwise it seems that you got this information out of thin air. This includes
Vonnegut claims the bombing killed more than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which is also false.as that was the first mention of that fact. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually you make a claim and take however many sentences it takes to express the claim, then you cite the claim.
adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism, which is obviously what happened here. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]