Talk:Sophie's Choice (novel)

message: In this academic review the book is highly criticized; I'll live it up to other editors whether to include this in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad review 

message: :Image:Sophie Choice Styron.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sophie Choice Styron.jpg

message: It seems to me that this article could use wikification.Heatherfire 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense? 185.13.50.212 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikification 

message: There has been additional controversy over the novel for perpetuating certain notions.  It actually says, in capital letters, that Poland is an antisemitic country, and then goes on to say that antisemitism was practically invented in Poland.  It perpetuates the notion that Poles, by and large, were happy to have the Nazis come in and rid them of their "Jewish problem," and even suggests that many Poles admired the Nazis until the Nazis started coming after Poles as well.  It perpetuates the notion that Polish help for the Jews in Poland during the Holocaust came just from a tiny handful of individuals, opposed to the mainstream.
All these things are widely believed without question, and not even regarded as controversial--believed to be the truth because, well, because everybody knows it.  In fact, a little honest look at history shows them to be far from the truth.  But it's a large basis for the novel.  The novel is based on a commonly believed slander of Poland and the Polish people. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: The article mysteriously says, "Only at the end of the book do we also learn what became of Sophie's daughter, named Eva," and it is left at that. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, spoilers are allowed and the article feels unfinished without knowing what happened to her. We find out what happened to everyone else (excepting her son which is never resolved) so why leave out Eva? I don't remember it's been so long, which is why I came here. I wanted to refresh my memory and unfortunately that isn't going to happen. 173.17.225.100 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was addressed and fixed. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs detail on what happened to Eva. 

message: It's an awful, awful idea to give way, in the opening paragraph of the article, the "secret revealed near the end of the story".
I'll at least move it down to the "Plot summary" section, where it shouldn't surprise too many people.
(It's a great pity that Template:spoiler hasn't been brought back yet.) Gronky (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  spoiler: a secret revealed near the end of the story 

message: I added a "Original Research" noticed to the major themes section, as it feels like it is original research, and I don't see any citations or a source for that section. 188.37.41.230 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some editing to change the structure of the "Themes" section (now a sub-subsection), but the concern remains, and so the tag is still in place. Le Prof  73.210.154.39 (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After waiting a month to see response to changes, the paragraph has been moved here to Talk. See below.  73.210.154.39 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Themes is Original research? 

message: I am now calling for Expert attention to the article, after having mapped a series of very serious issues, having to do with its naive content, the redress of which I began to attempt today. To present a paragraph on a minor school censorship issue as the sole focus of the books controversial aspects is to have completely missed the boat: Styron was attempting to reorient the views of the reading public in a significant way, with regard to its interpretation of the Holocaust, a perspective (regarding Styron's artistic intentions) that appears to be the preponderant view of scholars in this area, in no small part because Styron said as much in essays and interviews contemporary with the first publication of the novel). Bottom line, this article has been inaccurate, in significant ways, for a very long time; and while I have done a bit to orient it properly, it needs expert sets of historian and literary eyes to give it a thorough going over and re-write. Le Prof  73.210.154.39 (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of this day 

message: I'm concerned about the recent sweeping edits to the article that are clearly agenda driven. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia policy to know how best to flag this, but I'm hoping that this note might draw attention to the plight of the article, so that more knowledgeable editors can clean it up and restore neutrality and balance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arohanui (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No agenda-driven edits. The recent edits were not agenda-driven, but they were accuracy driven, and based on published secondary source content, as WP requires, rather than on editor-generated opinion. Specifically, the interpretations now appearing regarding the author's intent for the novel are those held broadly, by the preponderance of academic scholars, on the subject, because they are so clearly based in the authors own contemporaneous, explicit published comments. Feel free, add some good scholarly secondary sources that argue your alternative interpretations, to Further reading. Let us see your opinion, through the sources you propose. Personal opinions do not matter a whit, otherwise. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic editing 

message: In followup to an issue dating to March of 2014 (see section above, "Major Themes is Original research?"), attention to which was called by another editor, the following paragraph is moved here, for lack of any sourcing:
It should be put back into the "Themes" section, even sentence by sentence, when some source can be provided for these views. Otherwise, they are WP:OR.  73.210.154.39 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced, problematic paragraph

message: *The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers of 1979
*http://unsworth.unet.brandeis.edu/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Sophie%27s+Choice
64.175.42.92 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding this link from a *.edu site, to the external links section. TY for adding it here. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sophie's Choice - 20th-Century American Bestsellers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sophie's Choice (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031814/http://www.nbafictionblog.org/nba-winning-books-blog/1980-5.html to https://www.nbafictionblog.org/nba-winning-books-blog/1980-5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The book misinforms about history of Poland. It would be impossible to publish a book containing similar anti-Semitic text, but anti-Polish is O.K. Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Polish fiction 

message: Is this an article about Sophie's Choice, or is this an article about Rosenfeld's article on Sophie's Choice? I realize this is a controversial book and the Holocaust is a controversial subject, but the author received the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation's Witness to Justice Award. It's strange that this one critic is so strongly represented on this page. 2600:6C64:643F:391D:718F:8793:787:E300 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosenfeld? 

message: There seems to be some anger aimed at Styron for shifting the focus of his novel from Jewish suffering and murder to non-Jewish suffering and murder. Although Jewish persons bore the largest number of vicious attacks, they were not the only ones to feel the sting of the Nazis. In its lede, the following Wikipedia article provides a graph of the other groups that were also slaughtered along with associated citations. 6,000,000 Jewish people were slaughtered while up to 19,600,000 people in total died at the hands of the Nazis.
As large as these numbers are, they still do not include the legions of survivors who suffered at Nazi hands, both in the camps and out, the numbers of whom can only be guessed, and who came through with a multitude of physical and emotional injuries.
So many people are ignorant of these facts that they are therefore little spoken of. For the number of deaths, see: "Holocaust victims" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims 
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons murdered and survivors injured in the holocaust.