Talk:The Tin Woodman of Oz

"Meat glue" vs "magic glue"
Hello Oz freaks and Wikipeople! Forgive me for abusing the TALK page to ask a question which doesn't necessarily affect the article, but if I don't learn the answer to this question soon, I will go mad and need to be put into a rubber room and kept under sedation.

The first edition of The Tin Woodman of Oz, and all subsequent editions right up to the large paperback which I owned in the 1970s, refer to the glue which Ku-Klip the tin-smith used to stick body-parts together and construct Chopfyt, as "meat glue". I was so intrigued with the idea that when I was dungeon-master in a game of Dungeons & Dragons (which was a new thing in the 1970s) I had my players find a treasure with some meat glue in it, introducing a new magical item into our D&D lexicon.

But today, the books in the stores, and the online stuff at Gutenberg, all say "magic glue" instead of "meat glue".

Can someone PLEASE tell me who made the decision to change it, and when, and why? I search and search online and I cannot find the answer. Thank you, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Reason for sales--original research?
Although the question of why The Tin Woodman of Oz (and several other Baum books) sold so well in 1914 is a very interesting one, the association with WWI sounds like original research, if I am correct in thinking that the cited book, The Generation of 1914, does not mention Baum specifically, but rather merely talks about trauma and possibly about nostalgia. If the book does in fact mention sales of this book as an example, this should be made more clear than it is currently. It seems to me that a more plausible explanation would be the fact that many if not most of the girls who read The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as children when that book was published in 1900 would now have small children of their own. But that would obviously be MY original research, and should not be mentioned in the article. It seems sufficient to note the increase in sales without speculating on the cause, unless, as I said, the cited book does in fact touch on the matter.--Matt Thorn (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)