Talk:Dulce et Decorum est
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dulce et Decorum est article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
After intending to do so for quite some time, I've rewritten this article, for the most part. I've tried to remove all NPOV, as well as provide some references (not done in previous versions of the article, so far as I know). I've also restructured it entirely, adding section headers (and thus a table of contents). Feel free to edit away -- just try to keep a good structure, this time around, and let's see more references, not just bits and pieces we (I'm guilty, as well) remember from college poetry courses! Icydesign 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rephrased this sentence: "Owen, in the final stanza enforces that, should readers see what he has seen, they (the government) would cease to send young men to war, all the while instilling visions of glory in their heads." New version: "Owen, in the final stanza, asserts that, should readers see what he has seen, they would no longer see fit to instill visions of glorious warfare in young men's heads." A few reasons for the change: Owen can't enforce what would happen, but he can (and does) make an assertion. Grammatically, the original leaves room for mistaking Owen as the one "instilling visions of glory". Lastly, Owen says not that governments would stop sending young men to war, but only that you'd stop propelling them with lies about what it's like (he directs his concluding remark to the reader; there's no anonymous "they" here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuper (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The material on Pope was nearly duplicated. I cleaned it up as well as I can in the short time I have at the moment. I'll get back to it later today, with any luck, to work on a rewrite and some sources. --Icydesign 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency about the structure of the poem. Under "Summary" it is described as being,"the combination of two sonnets, though the spacing of the stanzas is irregular," and yet it is later in "Structure" referred to as being "written in form of a french ballade; the first part tells the story (broken into three stanzas) and the second draws a lesson." Which is it, ballade or double sonnet? There is no citation for either of these. I suggest finding out a source that says that it is one or the other, deleting this material, or finding some other way of making this supported and consistent.
It looks like someone has attempted to clean this us and succeeded only in duplicating it. Is this the nature of what the editor feels makes the article substandard? Or is it in need, in your opinion, of a complete or near-complete rewriting. Rlquall 22:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thick green light...As under a green sea, I saw him drowning...guttering, choking, drowning...the blood come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs This is not a description, nor are the symptoms particularly reminiscent of mustard gas. Instead, the poem seems to describe an attack of chlorine or phosgene gas. Taken from the page on mustard gas: Those exposed usually suffer no immediate symptoms. The exposure develops (in 4 to 24 hours) Mustard gas, I believe, was also not in wide use against British troops in 1917. Mustard gas furthermore has a yellow-brown colour. I believe this is grounds enough to replace the statement. --^pirate 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
couldn't the "green sea" be from his gas mask??
- The effects described in the poem could really be either chlorine or phosgene. The thing is that chlorine has been described as having a downing effect. It should also be noted that cholroine is greenish while phosgene has no colour. Because of this most people have agreed that Owen would have been describing chlorine gas. --Tobes 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was told when studying this piece for GCSE English that it was Chlorine. Emyr42 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the actual poem listed on the page? It seems that the copyright should be expired. It would be a helpful addition to the actual page. 18.104.22.168 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The full poem is on Wikisource. The link is on the top-right of the article. --22.214.171.124 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's now hidden away in the bottom right and is not at all easy to see or obvious. This article should draw more attention to the link.
I just got to the suggested merging page rather than the article on Owen's poem. Rather than merging the two, i suggest that a disambiguation page be made, also allowing direct links to the film 'Johnny Got His Gun' and 'The Skids'. Does this make more sense than a merge? JamieKeene 15:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- While I don't understand the formal considerations in the suggested merge vs. disambiguation, I would support keeping this page separate. There are plenty of examples in Wikipedia of individual pages on literary works, certainly a well-known (i.e. notable) one such as this — whereas subsuming this page into a more general one on the phrase or concept of "Dulce et Decorum" would allot it undue, disproportionate volume there. -- Deborahjay 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. logologist|Talk 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad I'm not alone. To clarify my suggestion:
- 1) I suggest that the current page become a Disambiguation page, and the content be moved to 'Dulce et Decorum Est (poem)'
- 2) Remove the redirect of Dulce et decorum est to Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori and have the former redirect to the disambiguation.
- JamieKeene 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. logologist|Talk 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of keeping it separate or as a disambig page, as noted above; but no merge. This is an important poem that needs its own article, as does the phrase itself. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done JamieKeene 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Assignment on DEDE
I'm doing a scripted dialogue on this very poem. I've mainly talked about the subject matter, theme and imagery and sound techniques and stuff like that. Does anyone else have any tips (It's due in on Friday, so it probably won't matter.)
Journo:In:Making 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Poem on page and Wikisource don't match
- The article should not contain the text of the poem, as indicated in WP:style. If it were a haiku, it would be different, but whole portions of a poem do not belong in an encyclopedia article. This is the stance that the style editors have taken, and I think this article should reflect thatMrathel (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can find nothing in the WP style guide that supports the idea that the text of poems other than haikus should not be repeated. Nothing, nowhere, just simply not there. If I am wrong, please supply a citation. If somebody can't give me a clear and cogent reason the text of the poem should be banned from the page about the poem, I will re-post it. I know it is linked elsewhere, but that is no reason to ban 28 lines of one of the most important pieces of English literature of the 20th Century. You have 48 hours to give a good reason, and then it goes back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm and Al (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have moved this to lower case "est". I realise our title case convention is to capitalise the final word always, but this particular title is deliberately half of a Latin phrase, and the final word merely means "is". i.e. the title is deliberately a half-phrase left hanging. Owen gave the "est" lower case in the original publication of this poems—see Wikisource:Page:Poems (Owen,_1920).djvu/17—and I think we should honour that rather than imposing our personal preferences over it. Hesperian 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)