Talk:Tin Woodman

Revised
I have made extensive revisions to this article as part of an effort of mine to upgrade and improve the articles for Oz characters. The old article was basically only about the character as he appears in the classic books. I have added information about the subsequent movie as well as the modern revisionist works. --MatthewUND 05:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this article from "Tin Woodsman" to "Tin Woodman". Though both names are in common use, "Tin Woodman" was the original name penned by L. Frank Baum, who thought it would be entertaining to have an oxymoronic name (is he tin, or is he wood?). If I ever find the relevant quote from the annotated edition, I'll add it in here. The article looked a bit silly under "Tin Woodsman" when the image was so clearly labelled "Tin Woodman". Finally, there were slightly more wikilinks to the page through the old "Tin Woodman" redirect. --Woggly 09:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some bibliography and references to the political allegory interepretation (carefully noting that it is disputed territory). Not disputed is the fact that the Tin Man has a long history in European and American culture before 1900. RJensen Rjensen 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

McFarlane toy removed
I've removed the following from the article:


 * In Todd McFarlane's action figure line "The Twisted Land of Oz", the Tin Woodman is a zombie with machinery attached to him; in the accompanying story, he was a mad scientist in a past life who took people's body parts and attached them to his own failing body.

I don't think that this toy line is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the article for the Tin Man, and have already asked if there are any objections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oz and Talk:McFarlane Toys. If anyone has evidence that this toy line and its accompanying story were particularly noteworthy (e.g. coverage in mainstream media), it can be restored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial
A Chef Boy R De commercial shows him being dressed as a can of the tinned food being chased by kids and adults. 65.163.112.225 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's mentioned in the article. See Tin Woodman, seventh paragraph. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paradox in Oz
I've removed the following paragraph from the "Classic books" section:


 * In Paradox in Oz, a rather sinister version of Nick Chopper is discovered as the body guard of the Evil Wizard who rules the Grim Obsidian City that has replaced the Emerald City. Apparently human still, he is armed with an axe that he shows no hesitation in using, attacking Ozma on the orders of his wicked master. When the fairy girl tries to plead to the good man she knew, Nick is unmoved, because he "has no heart."

I assume this is referring to the 2000 book by Edward Einhorn, published by Hungry Tiger Press? If so, it really ought to be in the "modern fiction" section, if it's notable enough to merit inclusion at all. Can someone verify that the 2000 book is what's being talked about here, and judge whether it merits inclusion in the article? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the book referred to. It's widely available (carried by most comic shops, though it's a novel with illustrations), and is more or less an orthodox Oz book that delves into the concept of parallel universes.  --Scottandrewhutchins 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * D'you think it's important enough to be included in the "Modern fiction" section? (Ideally, we'd determine this by finding reviews, etc., but the article isn't quite up to that standard yet.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Literature's First Cyborg?
Since the Tiktok page mentions the fact that Tiktok is literature's first robot, should Nick's page mention that he's literature's first cyborg? Unless that title is held by someone else (which is highly unlikely), I don't see why that little fact shouldn't be mentioned. --Promus Kaa (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page has been extensively vandalised. I have removed a large chunk of nonsensical, rambling, block-caps text about nothing in particular; but there are still some problems with the character summary that I am unable to fix, as I do not know much about the character. Not sure how else to bring this to someones attention. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.225 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic literary interpretation presented as fact
The character, originally, came from a rural setting, and was transformed to tin because a witch cast a spell on his axe, but in the "Sources of the Tin Man image" section, some d-bag has stated outright that the Tin Man was dehumanized by industry, a claim derived from Marxist critics of the book. The same paragraph says that he "cannot move without the help of farmers (represented by the Scarecrow", again quoting Marxist critics. This paragraph is repeated two paragraphs down, as if some editor has quoted the article within the article. This paragraph does not belong at the beginning of that section.--Drvanthorp (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing Marxist about it -- the dehumanization of uindustrial workers was an American theme of the 1890s. There are no "Marxists" in the historiography and even if there were, Marxist literary theories are quite acceptable in scholarship about literature. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My complaint, in this case, is not against Marxism, or against scholarship. My complaint is that someone's interpretation of Baum's work is being presented as if it had come from Baum himself. And I will again point out that the literary interpretation forced into the first paragraph of the section was cut and pasted from the third paragraph of the section. This bit of test doesn't need to be in there twice, and it is more honest and stucturally makes more sense for it to only appear in the third paragraph of the section. --Drvanthorp (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not deal in facts. It deals in verifiable statements by reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should attempt to be as factual as possible, and should not present some scholar's speculations as if they had been written by Baum himself. Now if I were to research of the people behind the Journal of American Studies, the citation from which has been so zealously guarded, I wander what names would come up? Is it within the ethics of Wikipedia to cite your own journal in your own edits? --Drvanthorp (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tin Woodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109064554/http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/OZ/Responses.html to http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/OZ/Responses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)