Talk:MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors

message: This plot needs work. It lists things that happened in the movie, but not the book such as the football game. It leaves out things that were in the book but not the movie. For example, it doesn't mention the part where Trapper dresses as Jesus, strapped to a cross and dangled from a helicopter so that they can Hawkeye and co. can sell photos to the religiousl inclined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.106.13  (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 April 2007
: I agree that the plot section needs work, but I disagree about the nature of work needed.  Errors aside, this section is a complete re-telling of the entire story.  Is that really the way to go in book articles?  Seems like overkill to me.  --63.25.236.17 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is overkill and certainly does nothing to make the entry look appropriate to an encyclopedia.Irish Melkite (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: The title of the novel, as can be seen on the cover of the original 1968 edition reprinted in this article, is MASH, not M*A*S*H, which was created for the poster of the movie. — Walloon 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This is the first I've ever heard of the subtitle.  I have a paperback edition from the 70s with the film poster (peace sign on female legs) on the cover.  I just checked, and nowhere in the entire book does the phrase "A Novel About Three Army Doctors" appear.
--63.25.236.17 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is no subtitle in the original hardcover or paperback editions.Irish Melkite (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitle 

message: :Image:MASHBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MASHBook.jpg

message: It indicates in the box that Pocket Books was the novel's publisher. That's only true as to the paperback edition - which is not what's referenced when it indicates 224 pages as the length. That page count refers to the hardcover, published by William Morrow & Company, Inc. - October 1968.
The Pocket Books edition (at least the original 1969 version, 1st paperback printing) was 180 numbered pgs; those did not include 8 unnumbered pages at the front (title page, author's foreward, and a couple others) or 4 pages of ads at the back. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication Data 

message: To be honest, there are issues with this article. There are too many details of the plot and too little reality, which WP:PLOT is against. It needs evidence of impact, such as reception. Plot needs to be skimmed down, and notability of this novel is dubious, aside from the fact that it inspired MASH (film) and M*A*S*H (TV series). Since I haven't read the book, maybe it needs cleanup if the article must be stronger as independent. Otherwise, how about merge? --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with this novel 

message: So who really wrote the novel Hooker or Heinz? Please answer. Thank-you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.198.189 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  So who really wrote the novel?