Talk:World War Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
This article is supported by the Science fiction task force, which deals with science fiction novel articles

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit)

Needs to have something in reception section, and restoration of some of the overview Sherzo 09:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Tasks you can do:
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Why is Russia singled out in doing so poorly?

God I hate when Russia turns out to be the bad guy or is the one that does poorly. What do they mean they didn't have the equipment or whatever that resulted in them doing so poorly?

-G

Because the Russian military IS very poor. It has very low morale, and all its equipment needs an overhaul.

also russa was fighting a much more compley battle with europ to the west and china to the southBoatman666 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

Id like to ask people to not put Ireland under the catagory of the United Kingdom as the Republic Of Ireland is an independant Country and is not apart of the British Isles,The Common wealth or Great Britain.The UK/Great Britain only comprmises of Wales,Scotland,England and Northern Ireland..

it is part of the British Isles its not a part of the UK Sherzo 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Yonkers Merge

I do not believe that the article Battle of Yonkers needs to be merged with this. There is an excellent amount of detail there, which is rather too much to put into the main article. Objections? Reactions? --Grahamdubya 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit too developed for a merge at this point, yes. Normalphil 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if no one else supports a move in a week's time (22 February), I'm going to pull the merge notices from the pages. Grahamdubya 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, and maybe one a page for the battle of Hope as well?

Tobias1 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's been developed to an unnecessary degree, and the battle doesn't merit this much depth or its own entry. I support a merger. AndrewXyz 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be leave it as is; it has now been a week, and I am concordantly removing the merge notice from both the Battle of Yonkers and World War Z. Grahamdubya 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I support a merge, it was a pivotal battle but it is far overdeveloped and overcomplicated. the information would be better if filed into more appropriate areasBoatman666 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phalanx Merge

I think the Phalanx article needs to be merged with the greater WWZ, as is, it stands out uselessly as it's own separate article. 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)~

I'm not really sure why there is a complete seperate article for the Phalanx vaccine, nor would I want to add such a long section into this article. Max Overload 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Support, it only really needs one paragraph. --McGeddon 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
support, it was a relatively minor thing in the book more than a paragraph is excessive for a vaccene that didn't even workBoatman666 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
support, doesn't need its own article. --JMurphy 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right-wing objections

Hello - as a fan of the book, I find it highly inappropriate that half of the article is dedicated to right wing objections to some of the content; I move that those portions be stricken from the article.

Striking them from the article completely isn't necessary. What the article really needs is more work done (synopsis, reviews, etc). When it has been fleshed out some more the objections won't dominate the article so much. For now they should be left in on the assumption that the article will be filled in. Levid37 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to have a source; for instance, a link to an online reviewer or blog which takes offense at the book's Bush-bashing (which is relatively minor, in my opinion). We so often find that when someone writes "some people" in a Wikipedia article, they're referring to themselves. Teflon Don 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Gone. I meant to do it before, but the database was locked and I'd forgotten about it since. EVula 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gone? Why? I put it there so other people like myself won't have the same awful experience I had. For others who aren't bothered by things like blaming zombie outbreaks on Bush, they will be unaffected by my comments. Why censor them?

Why? Because your personal feelings are irrelevant and counts as original research, which Wikipedia has fairly explicit rules against. EVula 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal feelings? You mean like, "World War Z is reminiscent of Soren Narnia's Song of the Living Dead (2003)"?

I accurately described the passages from the book that clearly lay blame for the zombie outbreak at the feet of the Bush administration. That is fact, not opinion, and not a feeling. It's also just as relevent as what other books World War Z reminds you of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visvivalaw (talk • contribs).

I didn't write the bit about Song of the Living Dead, so please don't attribute it to me. I removed it, although not because it was POV-pushing. I removed it because the book has no Wikipedia article, and is therefore non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for forcing me to take a stronger look at that.
Also, "Some readers felt" is a blatantly unsourced claim. You've failed to address any of my complaints with your POV-pushing copy; additional insertions will be reverted as vandalism. EVula 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...you're pretty much inserting your own POV with weasel words. "Some readers"? Some readers might consider the book to be a parable about Kevin Federline...that doesn't make it factual.--CyberGhostface 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No need for threats, EVula. I'm not a vandal. I was trying to add what I thought was important information but after reading through some of the rules you and CyberGhostface mentioned I can see your points.

So to be clear, if I could cite a source -- an article somewhere that related the same information I was trying to insert -- then I'd be okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visvivalaw (talk • contribs).

Pretty much, yeah, though it would need to be broken out from the general information section (and would need to be something more than just somebody's blog saying "omg Bush sux in Wordl War Z lol"); "Critical reaction" would be an excellent name for a section like that. (also, I didn't mean for it to come out as a threat, merely a statement)
Also, as an aside, if you can find a blog post that says that exact thing, that'd be absolutely hilarious. :-) EVula 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Zombie Dehydration

I read the book this past week, but not the Survival Handbook, and have a question that remains unresolved in my mind. I don't know if it belongs in the primary article or not, so post it here:

Why don't the zombies get dehydrated? Yes, I realize that some suspension of disbelief is necessary whenever one speaks of zombies, and I'm certainly willing to meet you halfway. George Romero's zombies never hung around nearly as long as the Z's, and the 28 Days Later 'zombies' were still essentially alive... I'm willing to accept some postdeath activities on the part of our deceased friends, but feel that they should(to the greatest degree possible) comport themselves according to the rules of physics - a Zomboid in the desert is going to get dried up!71.42.82.201 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual science of the zombies is covered in fairly explicit detail in the survival guide. I can't remember the exact rationale, but I do know that deserts were the most conducive for zombies simply because the rate of decay was much, much lower in such an arid environment (as opposed to jungles, where the humidity sped up the decomposition process). EVula 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think you'll find the science in both books was pretty sketchy, there was no reason given for the zombies not dehydrating, just as there was no reason given for a number of inexplicable phenomena. for example, it was clearly stated that zombies have no sense of feeling and that a zombie with no nose, ear canals, tongue or eyes (meaning that they lacked all senses) would still try to bite at a human close by. On the dehydrating point again, the only specific comment made about it that i can remember was that zombies do not blink, possibly because they do not have the fluids to be constantly lubricating the eye.

For your complaints on the senses, he wrote in the ZSG (which this was based off of) that it was a known mystery of zombies already, that even with their five normal senses compromised (like eyes rotting out) they could still hunt after a nearby human. He didn't provide an explanation, just that it was one of those mysteries in it all. I think it's a fairly minor one compared to the mystery of how the virus makes the brain into a source of perpetual energy without being fed any kind of fuel, but it's necessary for the primary conceit of zombies to work, so I just accept it and move on. Nerrin 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Zombie Survival Guide said something about since zombies organs and blood no longer function, the pretty much don't need anything. I'm not an expert on human biology, but isn't water really only needed for blood and sweat? If zombies have neither, why do they need water.

In Survival guide, it makes it clear to the reader that "scientists" are largely uncertain about many, many things conerning "Why?"s. Its a way for the book to combat the "Why"s, since all you have to say is "no one knows yet". So basically...anything not described in the book(s) is assumed to be not understood by modern science.

[edit] Human Death Toll

Fixed Death Toll section based on new data from the Randomhouse WWZ website (http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/). Click on the author tab and scroll down for the interview (Sorry, no direct link due to site being flash based)


I just read this book and I'm pretty sure there is a comment to the effect of 'back when the world's population was above a billion' . . . this implies an overall death toll of 5 billion people??? I am re-reading this again right now, and if I find this quote I will add to the article with citation, and if I don't I will delete this comment.

Well, it doesn't state what the world population was before World War Z, so it could have been more than 5 billion or less than 5 billion (logic dictates more, but that's speculation). The interview itself says "we lost 600 million people", though Brooks comments that the number is very low. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I just did a quick check and I believe the subject being interviewed (Barati Palshigar, p.196) was referring to the Indian subcontinent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.135.169 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

600 million seems too low. In the Xu Zhicai interview, he states "China lost over half its population." 600 million is about half of China's population, so the death toll should be much higher. Agent Chieftain 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


In the final pages of the book, it's mentioned that 600 million is only the number of deaths caused directly by zombies (and therefore, I'd imagine, the total number of zombies) and doesn't count the deaths due to starvation, suicide, etc.

[edit] Zombie Survival Underwater

--Johnathonm 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) It could be because the zombie’s blood is a congealed, black mass. Thus, they can retain moisture better in all environments and further, this mass can stop their brain from imploding under water.

  • I've read the book and while zombies surviving underwater is not really new, I've always wondered how it worked. Yes yes, that's being too analytical of the whole lore of zombies and what have you, but come on, it was suggested there were millions of them on the ocean floor; evidently impermeable to pressure and all that. Who knows, maybe World War Z's zombies were something "evolved"? Shadowrun 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The zombies are immune to pressure due to their physiological makeup. Their lack of liquid/normal blood and bodily fluids that would be susceptible to pressure/pressure attacks - for example, the thermobaric bomb mentioned by the soldier who experienced the chaos in Jersey - prevents them from exploding. Likewise, as they are already dead, nitrogen bubbles or anything of that nature (which is what causes the "bends") would not affect them. Nor do they need to breathe underwater, of course. If anything were to cause organs to be violently removed from the bodies (again, the thermobaric bomb interview) the zombies would still continue to have mobility and the desire to eat. Pejorative.majeure 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but it still doesn't make much sense. Water pressure at the sea floor is enough to pulverize steel-submersibles have inches-thick armor to survive. Having said that, a brain would be flattened thinner than paper, unless it has the density of steel (more, actually). And a thermobaric blast-the air is compressed until it is several the density of steel, and it travels at the rate of a bullet. If an ordinary bullet can shred brain tissue to the point of killing the zombie, there's question as to what a bomb can do-forgotten about the fragments already, too? They are bullets-in and of themselves. 75.31.138.94 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason things like submarines implode underwater is because they're trying to keep the water out. The deeper you go, the water pressure increases. Well, zombies aren't exactly watertight. If the pressure inside the zombie is the same as the water pressure outside the zombie, the zombie is going to be okay. As much as I love the book, Max made a boo-boo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Right, but for a zombie to survive underwater, all its organs would have to be as dense as steel. Otherwise, it'd explode at ordinary atmopheric conditions. The pressure would damage its brain badly enough to kill it-decapitation works, right? 'Sides, it still won't survive a FAB blast.

75.31.138.94 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

When a living human goes diving, the pressure inside the lungs must effectively equal the pressure outside the body, otherwise the lungs will collapse. Zombies don't breathe and they're dead anyways. Air spaces within living bodies provide no support against greater outside pressure. Zombies don't have to worry about that either because they're still not breathing and they're still dead. A zombie's organs need only be as dense as water which what they're primarily made out of. Funny thing that you should bring up FAB's. FABs kill mostly by damaging the lungs and the intestines, neither of which a zombie needs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Ah, all right-the virus changes the body's physiology much more than I thought. But as for thermobaric weapons and FABs, I was under the impression that it was the blast wave that did most of the damage-i.e., flattening structures, et cetera, instead of primarily shrapnel, like in a regular bomb. The lung damage was a side effect. Now, the blast wave is the air, superheated. The heat and the blast causes the air to expand violently outward from the point of detonation. The air is, in effect, compressed to the density of metal (I'm repeating myself, aren't I?) and forced outward at the speed of a bullet. That is equal to slamming the zombie into a steel wall at several hundred miles an hour. The physical impact should fracture the skull and pretty much liquefy the brain. That's a kill. But, on a separate note, how does decapitation kill the zombie?

75.31.138.94 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you've read the book at all? The blast effect will knock them down, but it won't put them out. Fluid in a zombie body is reduced to a kind of gel and shock effects are minimized. Decapitation will not kill a zombie. The body will shut down, but the head will remain active. The only way to kill a zombie is to destroy the brain. PERIOD.

All right, calm down. I'll admit to not having read the book, but I'm trying to get things straight in my mind from the WP article and the section about the lobotomizer. So you are telling me that every bit of fluid, including what's in the brain, is turned into gel. I did not get that part earlier. But (please don't get impatient at me here), has the author said anything about how intact the brain needs to be? Since it's pretty much liquefied, I'll assume the answer is, not very.

Okay, barely related but I can't help myself. The Italian movie Zombi 2 features a zombie vs. shark "fight". So the viability of zombies under water has been around for decades, though that doesn't create a scientific rationale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.245.86 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry but if you can't allow for suspension of disbelief up to a point, then you will never accept a great deal of this. First, zombies don't decompose because no lifeform will ingest its 'corpse', so they last for as long as the brain survives. Secondly, and restricted to this topic, it has already been pointed out that since controlled diving will equilise pressure, zombies will not 'explode' underwater -- they don't have pressurised body parts, and the skull is certainly not pressurised, which is really the important thing. Piepants 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Piepants

[edit] Barack Obama as first choice for VP?

Does anyone else think that the "Howard Dean" character suggests (p. 147) that Barack Obama was the Democrats' first choice to serve as VP under Colin Powell? Worth a mention?

I believe the President was Colin Powell. The key clue is saying that the President has relatives in Jamaica, where Powell's family emigrated from. Also, the VP (probably Howard Dean) mentions that the President was in the military.

Not my question. I agree with both of those. The VP says (p. 147):

I knew I wasn't the first choice. I know who my party secretly wanted. But America wasn't ready to go that far, as stupid, ignorant, and infuriatingly Neolithic as it sounds. They'd rather have a screamind radical for a VP than another one of "those people."

So the Democratic party's "secret" choice was also black. Is it bad that I assumed Obama? 165.123.184.181 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) supercres

Really, all the speculation about who the unnamed characters are is original research, including the Colin Powell, Rudy Giulani, and Howard Dean characters. Unless someone provides a citation those statements should be removed from the article. Rray 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rolihlahla"

Just wanted to say that during the interview with the imprisoned "random government official" (his false name escapes me), he mentions a famous old leader hugging Paul Redeker. This leader was named "Rolihlahla" in the book. I don't think it's terribly common knowledge, but "Rolihlahla" is Nelson Mandela's middle name.

Shouldn't this get a mention in the "real life personalities" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.137.233 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Effectiveness of air forces

It mentions in this article that convential air forces are next to useless. Thats a bit misleading, if anything air forces in this type of situation would be extremely valueble in the ground support role. They would blow hordes of zombies into peices. Goldfishsoldier 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, in the book, the air force was pretty useless. Not only do the planes and helicopters consume a lot of fuel, but their ordinance wasn't particularly effective against the zombies (a bomb may blow a zombie apart, but unless it destroys the brain, the zombie is still a threat). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Beleive me, ordinance used for ground support would vapourize a person if they were standing with in 20 yards of the explosion, depending on the type of bomb and even then the concusion or shrapnel would tear a person apart. A hand granade could tear a person apart at 10 yards. I could go on about this for ages, but there's plenty of things in this book that I could argue about. But then again whats been said has been said. Goldfishsoldier 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But thing of all the manpower that goes into a bomb. Think of the resources to build and maintain planes. The book said that the airforce used too many resources for every Zombie it killed. It was a better use of resources to have the manpower that is needed to fuel, equip and maintain a bomber on the ground with Lobotomizers and guns. User:Stargate70

This one almost has to be chalked up to literary convention as the answer to your question is, the manpower/resources to lethality bang for your buck actually still goes to the bomb. The ability to simply blacken large areas of land is tactically useful in the described premise.

~Actually you are wrong. 500 pound bomb would certainly kill everything only few meters away. Blast pressure is next to harmless for zombies as described in book and shrapnels won't kill as many as you would like. Basicly the bomb would do the job that squad of new model troops would do in minute. Worse it would mangle some of them, reducing them to crawlers, the kind of zombie that troops resented most. As for hand grenades, they kill with shrapnels, victims die from bleedings or damage to internal organs, therby they aren't dangerous to zombies however they can harm humans.~

[edit] Oceania?

Is there any mention of what happen's in Oceania in the book? Goldfishsoldier 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is part of the new "Pacific Continent" - a collection of islands and whatnot in the South Pacific. Grahamdubya 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Australia and i found the lack of discussion about an entire continent was a bit odd. I mean i accept that we have a very low population density, but the only mention of oceania (not including the pacific continent) was in the few lines from the interview with the last commander of the international space station when it was mentioned that the government of australia relocated to tasmania. and surely given our low population density we deserved a mention...i mean, high heat (good decomposition), one giant island, no large bodies of water, very few people outside of major cities...perfect hide-out people!

i added a section regarding the limeted information in the book on AustraliaBoatman666 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratio of resources expended to zombies "killed"

I noticed that in the "Total War" Section of the article, it says:

"Further, advanced technology such as 21st century air combat forces proved incredibly ineffective, with the ratio of resources expended per zombies killed being woefully low."

Wouldn't it make more since if it said "woefully high"? Since the supplies are being divided by zombies killed in this ratio: 1 gallon of fuel/100 zombies is lower than 100 gallons of fuel/10 zombies. I've gone and changed it to "Further, advanced technology such as 21st century air combat forces proved incredibly ineffective, with the ratio of zombies killed per resources expended being woefully low." --Foe666 08:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

I was browsing, and preparing to add to the European section on Colonel Adler's attempts to protect Hamburg, when I realised the article's been flagged as 'too long'! How much more can we seperate it down? I'm a relatively new Wikipedia user, so I've never had to deal with an article this long! Any advice? BitterGoth 14:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soubriquet (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC).


The Article has actually been shortened signigicantly in recent days. I don't know how to go about getting it reviewed to remove the too long tag. Max Overload 13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this article too long, it is a shambles - I have yet to see so many spelling mistakes on one Wikipedia article. It is based almost entirely on fancruft and is for the most part entirely unencyclopediaec.

[edit] Need more information

We`need to mention quislings and laMOEs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.253.237.151 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, this section needs info about quislings, ferals, feral animals, and laMOEs (and possibly Robinson Curusoes). There is also no mention of the K corp in the military. Cokomon 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

added a relevent section under the north american headingBoatman666 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting a section

One interviewee from India criticizes the guide as having been too tailored towards Western society, seemingly to the slight indignation of the interviewer, the guide's author.

I'm rewriting this sentence. Though in the real world both books were in fact authored by Max Brooks, it never implicitly states in World War Z that the interviewer character authored the civilian survival guide. If anything this was probably just an in joke for those who had read the Zombie Survival Guide. If anyone can find a specific passage that directly links the interviewer and the guide then feel free to put it back in. Levid37 11:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It says at the back "Working for the United Nations Postwar Comission, Max Brooks had unparalleled access to the architects of victory."

[edit] pic removeal

Why was the picture removed from the wepons section? 75.0.59.61 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine because it was a poor-quality photo of someone holding some sort of gardening tool, which didn't match the description of the lobotomizer in the text, and added nothing to the article. --McGeddon 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

this article is lacking sections on critical response and other such entries you'd expect on a work of fiction. In Britain for example it was positive recieved though their was criticism of the historical innaccurate description of Clement Attlee and the portrayal of Britain part in the pacific theatre of WW2.

[edit] parts missing

where is half the articale gone all the stuff about europe and the rest of the world is gone is it sabotage? the articale cant be too long the star trek stuff go on for miles

its sabotage a guy called user:man in black hates the book, so keeps deleting it, without any justification, looks like he does it on a lot of articles, i assuming he doesn't have a girlfriend.

The article previously described the world of the book in explicit detail, as though it were a historical work. I've been trying to cut out the bulk of the in-universe setting and plot detail, to try and rewrite it into an appropriate summary, as well as come up with some material on conception and critical reception. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

so far you've only removed material and not added any, leaving merely stubs in your wake.Sherzo 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet found any useful references with which to fix this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

then dont remove sections untill you have something better to replace it withBoatman666 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts after first read

I read through the plot summary before looking at the rest of the article, and before spotting the cleanup templates. Admittedly, the complaint that it is overly long isn't entirely unwarranted, but the other two templates, well, are unwarranted. The article is no more in-universe than most fantasy/post-apocalyptic fiction articles, and, having never read any of Brooks' work, I'd say it reads just fine from an outsider's perspective as well. The template claiming that the article is unsourced is true, but there are only three sentences outside of the plot and character synopses:

"World War Z is a novel by Max Brooks which chronicles the fictional event "World War Z" or "Zombie World War". It is a follow-up to his previous book, The Zombie Survival Guide. The book was released on September 12, 2006."

There are no claims that require citation in those three sentences, and the book itself is obviously source to every other claim. I'm going to go ahead and remove the in-universe and unreferenced tags, and I'd propose that the tag about the synopsis being too long is open to some debate. MrZaiustalk 01:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Little tip: If you want to rewrite & vastly shorten the synopsis, you could pull three or four important points out into the article proper and replace the rest with a list of epochs like that seen in The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt MrZaiustalk 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Maher or Jon Stewart

I read political comedy guy to be Jon Stewart not Bill Maher, what does everyone else think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.111.38 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Man in Black AKA the Vandal

if you want to post a comment don't remove other people's show some RESPECT, i've reverted, feel free to post but do not remove others comments. however i am glad you finally willing to discuess your reasons on the talk page but i would appreciate you leaving the article alone until a consensus has been reached here. particularly since you regard the book as worthless.

  • I cant believe this guy deleting other people's comments off talkpages, a complete lack of manners people like that should be banned.

[edit] Locking a talkpage

I cannot believe anyone would lock a talkpage the only reason to is in order to gerryrig a consensus. I've restored the page, and i would ask user to respect each other, and A Man in Black and his edit war opponent both cool off this is totally uncalled for, i'd ask you both to refrain from editing the article, and A Man in Black one of the fundamental tenets of civilisation is free speech particularly when it comes to knowledge otherwise its just POV pushing, so please don't remove any comments, just because you don't like them, as Voltaire said "i may hate everything you say but i will fight till the death to protect your right to say it." i have copied and pasted your comment below the ones already there. Sherzo 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a plagiaristic level of detail, and had to block this user who picked a grudge pretty much out of nowhere. I don't know where 82.56.*.* came from (and I don't really appreciate you restoring talk page comments calling me a "vandal" for trying to clean up a page), but I know it isn't limited to this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

calling you a vandal is there opinion, but i do notice on your page it says your a member of the rouge editors? which seems to be a comedy group of petty vandals so perhaps this is justified? Sherzo 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia. Being a rouge admin is an ironic take on the accusations of users of admins going "rogue" when they're simply enforcing Wikipedia policy.
Inicidentally, is there a reason you're restoring the plagiaristic level of plot detail right away, with no explanation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • i never heard of them but the promise to vandalised the site on april 1st seems more of an uncyclopedia style than wiki, but it seem you have alot of difficult with other users. and there opinions and an attack would have to be definitiveSherzo 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • whenever i see an edit war i restore it to the last pre edit war condiction, though i have never seen one user have as many as you and after the first two i decided it wasn't worth it. Sherzo 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very bad idea when you're restoring plagiarism, as well as destroying copyedits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's also considered poor form to continue deleting an article and redirecting when there is a section on this very talk page that directly contradicts your actions. Grahamdubya 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be reverted to pre A Man In Black status seeing as he is the only one who seems to have a problem with it. At the very least unlock the main page.Boatman666 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

- Keep the book is a sequel to the highly successful zombie survival guide both an acclaimed author both of which have articles on wiki. The Book has been successful, and the rights have already been sold to Paramount for a 2008 movie. However some forking maybe in order and A man in black has some good with regards to more standard "book" formatting, Critical response etc, i notice the LOTR was mentioned on the history and i think this would be a good model to follow. Sherzo 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I hate it when you get an edit conflict on a talk page :)

This isn't a vote. Go find sources to which you can attribute those claims and add them to the article. The claim of the movie adaptation, the claims of success; all of that is unsourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

you complain about people being rude then you call be a liar? Film is IMDB good enough for you petal? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/ Sherzo 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being a liar. I'm saying Wikipedia is founded on the sources to which it attributes its claims, not on the (non-existent) authority of its contributors. And, frankly, no, IMDB isn't a very good source, as it is largely user-edited and has no formal editorial process. There's a fairly decent guide to evaluting sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

and wiki isn't user edited? Sherzo 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

how about Variety and washington post, but then i guess since you don't write them and your opinion is law they're not worthy either? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117945332.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 or how about the author's own page or are you gonna go an delete that aswell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brooks Sherzo 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Which is part of why we don't cite Wikipedia articles as sources for Wikipedia articles. Now, were you going to explain why you restored a plagiaristic level of plot detail, while undoing my copyedits and style edits? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

because you were in an edit war, and compared to most sci fi stuff like lord of the rings star wars or star trek, (which have character bios that read like fanwank bios) it seemed relatively modest, and i got the general feeling your edits were more out of dislike of the book or one of this articles editors. Sherzo 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dispense with the confrontational tone. I've endeavoured to be polite to you, despite you restoring comments calling me a vandal, defending comments calling me a vandal, and the latest incivility.
Other plagiarism does not justify more plagiarism. I don't have any strong opinions about the book, but I do have strong opinions about this particularly badly-written article.
Variety is a good source; it's a respected publication with a proper editoral process. Another Wikipedia article is not, due to the trivially simple possibility of incestuous referencing. (Article A backs up article B, and article B backs up article A!) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I approached this article with nothing but good manners you were the one who reverted with out discussion, who sought to crush free speech like an extra from some orwellian nightmare. i haven't called you a vandal, i was merely defending others rights to do so. and despite your actions i have treated you with respect something you sadly lack, and have attempted to comprise between you and your enemies. I think this article is notable because along with Resident Evil and the Dead series its a major work of both zombie and post apocalyptic fiction. now if you would like to state both the reasons for your changes and what they will be and your reasons for its lack of notability i will be delighted to discuss them with you Sherzo 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not free speech.
where was the plagiarism on this talk page? Sherzo 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
as for the article there is such a thing as fair usage and i don't see any copyvio, nor plagarism, nothing is lifted directly from the book, which is a collection of personal recollections, rather than one grand story, or several interwining ones. have you read the book or are you just going on guess work? Sherzo 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The book tells a single history by using fictional primary interviews and documents and memoirs, I know. Retelling that single history isn't the business of this encyclopedia.
We need to briefly summarize the story, as context for other content about the book in the real world. We need to find sources for that content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_wars_timeline, plus the parts you removed didn't tell the history only the parts you left. Sherzo 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't split my comments.
Once again, other bad articles do not justify making this a bad article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, I don't disagree that the novel is notable. Instead, this article completely fails to explain why it is. We need commentary in reliable sources. Reviews, discussions of its conception, literary or stylistic impact, other authors who were influenced; that sort of thing. User's opinions that "this is major" don't establish that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please show this with examples perhaps from Resident Evil, Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings i noticed the yonkers talk page they was a link to the battle of the dale, how is that done in this style, shouldn't we keep it consistent with pre existing article styles? Sherzo 08:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason to emulate other, low-quality articles. Consider instead The Illuminatus! Trilogy, a featured article about a trilogy of novels. Note that the plot summary is not the bulk of the article, and that the bulk of the article is instead about the conception, critical reception, and legacy of the novels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So the Darth Vader bios and Yoda bios which you edit, are good? why the different treatment? Sherzo 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page on a non-plagiaristic version, since it's clear that you are unwilling to do anything about this problem, Sherzo. Finding sources with which to improve this article is productive work, and should continue, but we cannot allow copyvio on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well since i can't now, can you enter the variety reference information. Sherzo 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing, to solve problems but i believe in discussion, but you yet to point out what is plageristic and how so? you've locked to your opinion and included an empty section, since no one else can edit it now i'd at least ask you remove the section reception since it makes it look silly to be there, in make more sense for your add material to it, out of interest do you know/ read the book at all? Sherzo 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When you retell a story in explicit detail, point by point, you are plagiarizing that story. We need instead to summarize it, instead of re-reporting it, as though it were a description of historical events.
I'm not really interested in discussing how I feel about the book. It's entirely irrelevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear you have no clue about the book the story isn't retold point by point, i'd recommend you do some research on it, http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/ check the world map since it has excepts from the audio book, and you see each chapter is a personal retelling of specific incidents never once does the book offer a 3rd person overview of events. Sherzo 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. I've read the book.
We need sources with which we can write about this book as an artefact in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

that seems to be against wikis style in this genre Sherzo 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There are many largely poorly-written articles about books, but they are not the ideal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm sorry i didn't mean to upset you by "spliting" your comments, i tend to add my response to a point indented below it, rather than at the bottom of the section i find it more readable that way, again no offense was intended. Sherzo 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Since the replies and threads above are scattered all about and impossible to track, let's split here.

We need reliable sources to attribute to build this article, and ideally they need to talk about this book as an artefact in the real world. The Variety link about the screen rights being acquired is a start. What else can we come up with? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AV Club review: [1]
Sacramento News Review review: [2]
Washington Post interview: [3]
Pay-to-read review from Buffalo News: [4]
Pay-to-read Salt Lake Tribune article: [5]
Is that multiple and non-trivial enough for you? --McGeddon 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism

I dont understand how this article can be seen as plagiarism. True, the article presents elements from the book, but in the opening paragrph it clearly states that it is the work of Max Brooks. Secondly the article was written in third person not first person, as the book is.

pla·gia·rism
Pronunciation Key -[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-]
–noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner. Boatman666 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/r/Talk%7EWorld_War_Z_65cf.html"