Talk:Slaughterhouse-Five

So It Goes

Krisandra Johnson's article provides gravity towards Vonnegut's compelling and absurd novel. War cannot be present without suffering and unfortunately the absurd is a byproduct of an individual's attempt to contextualize war. Billy Pilgrim is a prisoner of war as well as time from the narrative given bouncing through time yet discovering no solace. Johnson offers history of Vonnegut experiencing being captured during World War II contributing to Billy's visceral account of the war at varying degrees. Humane treatment can be neutered once power is forcefully given with no constraint. Vonnegut describes this within his novel while Johnson provides a detailed analysis of the phrase "So it goes" allowing the individual a retrospective inward gaze to themselves until truth is left. Death, especially at the hands of cruel men with stifled opinions of the world, proves to be inhumane and heinous. Therefore the nonchalant phrase of "so it goes" allows the reader to visualize a juxtaposed image of horrific treatment being received by men who would assumedly fight though their soul has been whittled to a numb. Sean.Robi733 (talk) 5:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Vonnegut claims...

@Polinova: Here's the rule of thumb

1. Start with a direct quote
2. Start paraphrasing
3. Anything added that's not in the quote is original research

The bottom line is that you need sources directly talking about Vonnegut and/or Slaughterhouse Five. Pulling sources talking about other things and then applying them to Vonnegut or the novel is synthesis and original research. This might be a good thing for secondary sources, but Wikipedia, like any other encyclopaedias, is a tertiary source where we repeat what secondary sources have already stated. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• DonQuixote, please note my tweak. Thanks for the explanation. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• You don't need to quote the book itself to cite someone making the claim. I cited a time magazine article and a research article making the claim. Polinova (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  You need to stick to what's written in the sources. You shouldn't add other things that's not mentioned in the sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The claim was that Vonnegut's number, 135,000 was false and based on David Irving's number. That is exactly what the sources I posted said. Polinova (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The point is that you added stuff that weren't in the orignal sources. Vonnegut repeats the incorrect claim that around 135,000 people were killed in the bombing, when in actuality the number is closer to 22,700. can't be attributed to Shortnews; Vonnegut claims the bombing killed more than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which is also false. 70,000-80,000 were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima. can't be attributed to Hiroshima Day Committee; etc. because they don't mention Vonnegut or Slaughterhouse Five. DonQuixote (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Those claims were both made in the research article which was cited at the end of the initial claim just not after the first sentence. You don't have to re-cite the same source every sentence in the same paragraph, just after the claim. The other sources provided context on the real numbers and such. Polinova (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  A word of advice, you should cite the relevant sources at first mention of a fact, for example: Vonnegut repeats the incorrect claim that around 135,000 people were killed in the bombing [cite the source that states this here], otherwise it seems that you got this information out of thin air. This includes Vonnegut claims the bombing killed more than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which is also false. as that was the first mention of that fact. DonQuixote (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's not how citations in general work. Usually you make a claim and take however many sentences it takes to express the claim, then you cite the claim. That is what I did. Often when you continue to write in the continuing paragraph you will continue to reference material addressed in the initial citation. You do not need to re-cite the same source over and over again in the same paragraph as you continue to paraphrase. The Hiroshima claim is an extension of the initial claim that the numbers were wrong and perpetuate a false view of history and derives from the same source. A word of advice, you should actually look at the sources cited when reviewing people's edits. If the issue, in your estimation, is a misplaced citation, then you should edit the citations or their locations. Instead you deleted the entire claim. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you claim this was an issue in citation location, this is just a mistake in how you approached the situation and you can do better in the future. The alternative is that you didn't actually check out the sources of a well-substantiated claim and deleted it anyway.

  In any case the issue is resolved now. I'm not sure if this is the best section to display the information, but I'm content with it and It would take much larger section revisions to put it somewhere else. That's the last I'll say about it. Nice working with you. Polinova (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Usually you make a claim and take however many sentences it takes to express the claim, then you cite the claim.

  Except that's not what you did. You made a claim and then cited a source that didn't even mention the claim. That is, you put things inbetween the claim and the source of that claim, including other citations, that made it very unclear. As cautioned in WP:TSI: adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism, which is obviously what happened here. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither Vonnegut nor Slaughterhouse-Five claim that 135,000 people were killed in Dresden. In fact, Ann Rigney's research article, which we cite, explicitly clarifies this: "The passages from Saundby (as quoted by Irving) are read out by a fictional character in Slaughterhouse-Five and do not, therefore, necessarily express the views of the novelist or the implied message of his narrative." In Slaughterhouse-Five, the character Rumfoord reads part of the actual foreword to the actual book The Destruction of Dresden, written by Robert Saundby (who in Slaughterhouse-Five is friends with Rumfoord). This foreword, which is quoted at length, says "They would do well to read this book [The Destruction of Dresden] and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as the result of an air attack with conventional weapons." So Slaughterhouse-Five is quoting a fictional character explicitly quoting Robert Saundby. In fact, Slaughterhouse-Five gives detailed attribution for the quote: "One of the books that Lily had brought Rumfoord was The Destruction of Dresden, by an Englishman named David Irving. It was an American edition, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1964. What Rumfoord wanted from it were portions of the forewords by his friends Ira C. Eaker, Lieutenant General, U.S.A.F., retired, and British Air Marshal Sir Robert Saundby, K.C.B., K.B.E., M.C., D.F.C., A.F.C. … What Air Marshal Saundby said, among other things, was this: …" So saying that Vonnegut claims that 135,000 people were killed in Dresden is a serious misconstrual. The novel explicitly attributes this statement to Robert Saundby, who actually wrote it in real life. Neither the character Rumfoord, nor the novel make this claim or have anything to say about it. It just happens to be part of the (actual) foreward that Rumfoord is reading in the novel. Attribution matters. Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinion as fact

Second sentence of the Plot Summary says "Vonnegut utilizes a non-linear, non-chronological description of events to reflect Billy Pilgrim's psychological state." Anyone is free to interpret the novel this way but the character does actually become "unstuck in time," as it were, within the plot of the book. He rightly predicts his own assassination at the end of the novel. There is no indication that he'd have any way of knowing this event was about to occur, outside his claim that he now views time as the alien race that abducts him does, given in the book. Therefore this assertion that it's simply reflective of his psychological state is simply an opinion. The citation for this claim is simply the novel itself. I'd edit myself but have no experience and doubt I'm even editing this talk page correctly. I would recommend changing it to say it reflects on how Billy Pilgrim has become "unstuck in time," a phrase that is used throughout the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B161:D576:A055:1981:40B9:9D26 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)