Talk:The Things They Carried

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mooodsy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thingstheycarried.jpg
Image:Thingstheycarried.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 atFair 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a spoiler warning? --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a bitch sometimes... -- ☯µWiki☯  Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki''') 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot
The plot summary was written as a personal precis and contained no references to reliable secondary sources (references to the primary source are inadmissible as this means the signifcance is still a subjective matter of a Wikipedia eeidotr reather than a reliable secondary source). It also contained inaccuracies, according to complaints received. I removed it. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that means that the entire plot section needs to be deleted, and, consequently, a good third of the article. I think asking for a little help in cleaning it up would have been a much more acceptable action. And aren't many of Wikipedia's articles on books, shows, et cetera, that have plots or summaries mostly by users themselves from personally reading/watching/listening to the book, show, et cetera? Finally, what complaints are you talking about? W  M  2  23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If a third of the article is a plot summary, then we are doing something wrong. The fact that other articles also have lengthy personal essays on the plot does not excuse this one having such a summary. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess that's true. Once things settle down a bit in my life, I'll see what work I can do to improve the plot section. W  M  2  19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps state what the demonstrations of the stockings' powers are under the plot summary of "Stockings."Mbish4 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the plot points seem shallow and could use additional information.Radam13 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The plot summary should continue the theme of the rest of the article and not have there title plots in quotation rather just have them bold and atop o the paragraph. Abdiel Tejada (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Low Importance
I feel like this novel should not be marked as low importance, considering that it was a Pulitzer prize finalist, among other accolades .


 * I agree with the above, unsigned comment. I changed the importance status. Jpcohen (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is also a lesser known film called "A Soldier's Sweetheart" based on the short story "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong." It was also nominated for two awards. I will edit it into the page shortly. Jgonz17 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wasted Opportunity
I understand this book is often placed on high school reading lists, so that goes a long way to explain this article. The problem is this:

This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a Cliff Note. This book is considered the definitive book about the Vietnam War and the book itself is a Pulitzer Prize finalist. For God's sake, it's been called the greatest book ever written on the subject of war. But there is no comment on reception, reviews, sales or legacy. No mention that it was a New York Times Bestseller. No comment, even, on the fact that it is listed on so many high school reading lists. Instead we face a slew of trivial detail, character lists and descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.19.142 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above point. Also, the work ranks high on the US list of banned books. If you look at PABBIS and other pro-censorship sites, they will tell you that talking about the war in such frank terms could cause high-school seniors distress and confusion about war and violence. Never mind that 18-year-olds are widely recruited for military service, and are very likely to experience the content in the book. The fact that it is a banned book should be entered into the article, as well as the justification for it. Perhaps "factsonfiction" would be a reputable source. 184.7.175.199 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot Summaries
I changed "his life outside the war" to "Martha" in the plot summary for "The Things They Carried."Mbish4 (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I added "Thoughts of Martha often distract Lieutenant Cross from his team's objectives" To the plot summary of "The Things They Carried". VinceFaustini (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Themes
I feel like the themes section should be edited in order to incorporate more citations. Right now this section includes sentences that describe how Tim O'Brien feels about writing this particular novel. However, there are no citations to prove that this is how he actually feels. I have found interviews that he has done where he talks about his work and his writing. I think that these should be added in lieu of the original text. Skosi1 (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

When talking about Genre, it should talk about what genre is actually is instead of talking about how he wrote a fiction and non-fiction book. This is vague.Radam13 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the Genre section does not make sense as it talks about "a couple major themes" but then moves into the style of writing which are not themes.Radam13 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Characters
I added ", who" to Lieutenant Jimmy Cross' character description so that the sentences flow more easily. VinceFaustini (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I add "the" before "protagonist" to Tim O'Brien's character description.Radam13 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if the article mentioned what tranquilizers Ted Lavender is using.Radam13 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I really struggle with the sentence structure for the characters. Too much use of ";" to create a run-on sentence. Believe the flow would be better if clear, distinct sentences are used instead.Radam13 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)