Talk:Funeral in Berlin

Avoid weasel terms
This article could be improved by stating who, exactly, rates this as being "probably the best" of the four novels, and properly attributing that point of view to someone. Uncle G 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs to be re-written. Having almost finished the book I am consulting this article because I find the book a very difficult read and I need clarification on things I have missed to do with the plot. 15:59, 10 April 2007

Agreed that a citation as to whose opinion that was would be an improvement.

It probably does need a major rewrite, however,  one certainly wouldn't want to attempt to catalog the twists and turns of the plot or even attempt to boil it down to a summary. Is the Semitsa plot a McGuffin or, are the the Broum papers or,  both? Toddrk (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dated?
Am not sure if the film and novel are now dated, I feel that since the Cold War has been over for more than 15 years and we are well passed the height of it in the 1960s and 1970s it is more "historical" than "dated". Benson85 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I read this whole series of books as they were published back in the 60/70's, and I have to say, this one was my favourite. This was a time when spy fiction and thrillers were everywhere, but most by far were 'Bond style' efforts. Not at all like the work of LeCarre and Deighton. Espionage is a very grey mediocre business, I know this from personal experience. Deighton's books were like a breath of fresh air in the forest of Aston Martins and gold banded cigarettes.

The cold war is over ? .... maybe. Don't bet on it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.100.207 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the novel is not actually "dated." Though, describing the subject as being about the defection of a Soviet scientist seems a bit daft as well. Toddrk (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fireworks dispute
The section about fireworks seems to have been written by someone who feels that in this "more safety-conscious age" anyone would agree with the strongly stated POV of the character quoted at length in the section. It may be true (sadly, in my POV) that this view has become more popular today, but it certainly isn't universal and the section needs a rewrite that doesn't assume it is. Note that the passage "censored" could reasonably be viewed as defamatory (which presumably explains how Brock's were able to "force" changes); I think it inappropriate to quote it in full.

In addition, the section begins with an imperative, which is not proper encyclopedic tone. 207.176.159.90 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While I can see that the POV might require adjustment, and I can understand how Brock's might get their name removed from the work,  I fail to understand how they were able to put through the subsequent alterations of the text.

Perhaps in a future rewrite of the article, the section might be retitled "Differences Between the American and British Editions" with a brief explanation of what the actual judgment was. (The American editions included all of the deleted text including Brock's name.) Toddrk (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "all printed copies of the Penguin 1966 paperback edition had the word Brock's (the name of a firework manufacturing company) crudely obscured using black felt-tip pen" is not correct. I have a copy of the 1966 Penguin UK paperback which does not have 'Brocks' name crossed out. Pontac (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here! My 1966 Penguin has all the supposedly excised dialog intact. TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whereas my 1987 "Silver Jubilee" edition (published by Grafton), is edited as per the urrent text of the article. Mr Larrington (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:N51917.jpg
Image:N51917.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing above concerns
I too found the passages mentioned here objectionable. i have a 66 copy of the book, confirmed no blacking occurred. all the facts still need references, though. removed the language and comments that are unencyclopedic. plot summary needs expansion, and of course, would have to include spoilers, otherwise its not accurate. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal dispute, again
I’ve deleted most of the Legal Dispute section per WP:LIBEL ("Delete libellous material when it is identified": "Ensure material posted on WP is not defamatory"). As a court ruling that someone has been libelled seems pretty conclusive evidence that a passage is defamatory, I’m kind of amazed that .a) that it was put her in the first place, and .b) that it has sat here for so long. I've added some detail from the text to explain the issue, as the paragraph seemed a bit sparse otherwise: I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I learnt about the issue in White Spines: Confessions of a Book Collector (2021 – ISBN 978 1 78463 213 7, Salt Publishing) by Nicholas Royle (p.84-85). The author had discussed it on Twitter and this thread has a series of images of redacted Penguins.
 * The facts seem to be that (some) copies of the 1966 edition had 'Brock's' redacted by blocking out in black ink and the text was altered in later UK editions to remove mention of Brock's. Searching online produces very little information; the Daily Express, 24 August 1966 mentions W. H. Smith pausing sales "pending possible legal action for alleged libel". (Smith's had a reputation for lacking a spine (of any colour) in the face of threats.) Can any one find more definite sources? Nedrutland (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)