Talk:The Guns of August

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot of things wrong with this article. Tuchman also describes in the opening chapters the situations that created the crisis, and she wrote a whole other book on the social issues leading to the conflict, which should be mentioned, since it does not have its own article.

"Beginning on July 28, 1914, The Guns of August plays out the cataclysm of events that lead to a continental war, as well as the strategies behind the war which would lead to inevitable stalemate." The book actually starts before that, and the latter half of the sentance should be rephrased as a separate sentance. Also note that describing the stalemate (is it generally described as such?) which developed as "inevitable" is fallacious, see Hindsight Bias.

"In the early days of August 1914 Germany was in a state of massive mobilisation. Their plan, years in the making, was to sweep in a giant arc across Belgium and northern France and, by the end of the month, descend on Paris, the heart of their longtime enemy. It is this single month that would spell out the future of Humanity." Quite a sweeping statement, that last bit. It needs to be removed or attributed to someone as their opinion. This badly written paragraph is in the introduction for what reason, pray tell? Historical background I could see, but about the book itself, not the history of the war.

More later. Tenebrous 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that my edits of this article do not offend anyone. I tried to leave parts of the original wikipedean's comments in the text. I also tried to bolster some points that I did not think he/she had represented well enough -- namely the point of spreading German Kulture across Europe if not the world. This did make the entry a little choppy.

I also added my personal view, which may be frowned upon, that this book is not a Military History but a History book on the effects of Military actions. Feel free to remove that comment if this is felt to be inappropriate.

Lastly my copy of the book is an older printing (Dell 8th printing, June 1967, 575 pages) so my page number references may be wrong. The references are second and fourth pages into the chapter (next time I get to a bookstore I will verify the numbers).

Please let me know if anyone feels things are misplaced or of poor form - this is my first contribution.

-Todd 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree with you as to the book's classification; most histories don't go into detail on battles, commanders, etc. However! Neither of our opinions have any business being in the article--stick to the facts. I'm sure that it's been sold as both History and Military History. My copy is 1980 from Bantam, but I don't think it matters as to the edition as long as we're consistent. Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ooops...

Sorry about the minor edits - I guess I need a class in proof reading. -Todd 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries ^_^ typos are the least of our problems on Wikipedia. Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Sources

I would love to find some sort of critical analysis on this book or, failing that, a review by a notable historian. Google searches aren't turning up anything, but I'll keep trying Tenebrous 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Thanks for the changes to the first section. It reads nicer and the additional reference is valuable.

Since I am new to wikipedia I am wondering about the deletion of the "Analysis" section.

I think I need to first ask if there is a template for non-fiction (I did not find one in Wikipedia:WikiProject Books). If there is one, then my comments below may not need to be read. It seems to me that there needs to be a section that discusses the book at a more personal level that would be able, through editing, to gain consensus on the value to the book.

Discussion pages might be aimed at doing this. In which case, I will repost the original "Analysis" (I am not sure who the author was) and then mine in this discussion. That really was my greatest concern in the edit that I did. I was surely removing part of the original author's view of the book.

So, 1) is there a template I have missed? 2) Don't you agree the "Analysis's" should be a) preserved or b) brought to a consensus.

-Todd 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you are talking about does not belong on wikipedia. The editors' opinion of this book would be about as POV as it gets, and WP:NOR and WP:V prohibit us from including that kind of material.
The authors' opinions or identities are not supposed to matter. Nobody owns these pages, and everyone is encouraged to edit them. We get to include facts (with a cited source), and the opinions of other notable people that have been published in some form. Wikipedia is not the place for your opinion, my opinion, or any other editors' opinion, see WP:NOT.
The 'Analysis' section should be reserved for critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics. I'm rather irritated at not being able to find anybody commenting on the content; I'd like to rely on book reviews only as a last resort. Tenebrous 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)