Talk:All Quiet on the Western Front/Archive 2

Removal of major themes section
I have removed the content major themes, which had apparently been deleted earlier. And with good reason. This entry could really use a erudite analysis of the book's content, but the removed sections in question are anything but. They completely lack authoritative references, and are littered with clunky statements, starting off with "war is total nonsense" followed by a narrative that smacks of a hastily written high school essay. Along with the fact that it's blatant original research, the prose and lack of credible analysis doesn't make these sections in any way useful to an encyclopedic article. Malljaja (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification of book content
I noticed that there've been plenty of new additions to the character section, some of which strike me as inaccurate or tangential. It's a few years since I read the novel, and I don't have a copy handy for checking. So I've tagged the entry for checking by an expert. Before adding new content a la "Bäumer has coeliac disease" without reference to a particular page or section, the current info given needs to be verified. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I spent years researching and developing my own translation so I guess I could be the "expert." There are certainly a few errors here, but I think this article is best left to the students who are discovering the wisdom and genius of this work for themselves. Please read it and enjoy it and make your own corrections. Boldly. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rumiton, I think there are two issues that need addressing: one is the veracity of contents, chiefly of the summaries of each character and how they are portrayed in the book. There's already some good content there, but I surmise that some of it needs some factual tidying up. This should be easy enough to do for someone with an eye for detail who carefully read the book. The other is an analysis of the novel, including public perception at the time it was published and how it's viewed today. This will require an in-depth knowledge of the literature dealing with the novel (properly referenced). It calls for a "real" expert on the subject, ie someone with the knowledge and energy to take this forward. If you've done extensive work on this book, and if you haven't already done so, you're especially encouraged to chip in, even if with minor additions. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are multiple issues. To become a useful literary commentary the whole article would need a major rewrite. But if that happened yet another young person who has read parts of the book and seen the movie with Ernest Borgnine and got them a bit mixed up would jump in again and change things. Thank you for your invite, but I believe it's better to leave this to the students. (Though if anyone wants to discuss I am always happy to.) Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't quite get your point. Who are the students? I'd like to think that we all are, at least so long as we are editing on wikipedia ;-). I agree that a major re-write is in order, and that the entry (as any wiki entry) is subject to changes however informed. Perhaps one reason why the article hasn't attracted high-calibre input, is that it's a rather clumsily written summary index of the characters. I'll try to work on that piece by piece, and I have it on my watchlist to monitor it for changes. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to high school students reading the book as part of a course. I don't have the time this article would demand, but I am most happy to talk about issues that might come up. Contact me on my talk page if you like. I would like to see it improve. Rumiton (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kropp's amputation
The article refers to Kropp's "double trans femoral amputation," which sounds like to me that both legs were amputated. I just finished listening to the book in my car (I believe it is the 1994 translation), and I did not recall that he had a double amputation. Anyone else? BartonM (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He didn't. He was wounded in only one leg and we don't know how much was taken off. (A "trans femoral amputation" is an amputation above the knee.) The last we hear of Kropp is, Albert’s stump is healing well; the wound has almost closed up. In a few weeks he should be off to the ward where artificial limbs are fitted. He is still much quieter and more serious than before, and sometimes breaks off in the middle of a sentence to stare in front of him. If he had not been here with the rest of us, he would have put an end to it long ago. He has come through the worst of it, and now he sometimes looks on while we play skat. Rumiton (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Shouldn't this article have some sort of plot summary or synopsis?Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * still no plot summary - I guess from the above comments, there used to be one Spanglej (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I resurrected the plot summary from the history - seems it got destroyed by vandalism in November 2007 and no one brought it back. It's not great, but it's a start and better than nothing at all. Averell (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone has stolen his watch
This recent edit is correct. The German original says: "Waehrend er bewusstloss war, hat man ihm seine Uhr gestohlen." While he was unconscious, somone stole his watch. No names. Rumiton (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Baumer spiritual death?

 * "In the novel's adaptations for films, this is presented as a physical death rather than a spiritual death."

This quote from the article makes it sound like Baumer didn't physically die in the book, but isn't that exactly what happened? He was killed but the dispatch for the day still said "All Quiet on the Western Front" because not enough people died? --Fxer (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this means. Maybe it should be taken out. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Elton John
It is not useful to link every word that can be linked, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Claiming that the song relates to the aftermath of WWI in Germany is an unsourced claim and not supported by the lyrics. -- Zz (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Characters
Do we honestly need to talk about every single character that we see in the book? I'm not sure we need the Minor Character' s section, unless every single person there had some significance or greater meaning, which I doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.230.85 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, most of the characters listed in the Main Characters' section aren't even that important to the plot. I would say that Paul and Kat are the only important characters, as they are in the book the longest. Muller doesn't even live that long, it's just that his death had a profound impact on Paul, but so have all his other schoolmates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.230.85 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose removing the character sections. This book has an ensemble cast of diverse characters + the character sections have been steadily expanded by various editors, suggesting that the current structure of the entry is supported by these editors. If you have an alternative format in mind, by all means lay it out here. I have respectfully modified your recent edits, which included removing the "goose" section. You are welcome to include this info again, but you will need to cite a proper source, so as to not run afoul of NOR. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)