Talk:Kurt Vonnegut/Archive 2

Trivia

Vonnegut smokes Pall Mall cigarettes. Still? At the age of 82? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anville (talk • contribs) 09:49, October 16, 2004

Yes. He chain smokes them, too, I've read. - 129.137.3.98 15:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know his character does this in Breakfast of Champions, but the most that can indicate is that Vonnegut was a smoker in the early 1970s. What makes you think being old is going to help stop a smoking addiction? Vonnegut attended self-help classes and actually did quit smoking for a while, but has since then decided to start again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.128.70 (talk • contribs) 04:58, November 13, 2005

What makes me think that being old is going to stop a smoking addiction is that most people who smoke cigarettes, particularly high tar/high nicotine cigarette like Pall Mall, don't live to age 82. Crunch 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for the trivia section too? Some of the stuff could be moved into other partics of the article but some of it doesn't seem worthy of an encyclopedia article. De we really need to know he smokes Pall Mall cigs or made a cameo appearance in a movie? Commonbrick 22:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the chain smoking is relevant to understanding his personality. --Saforrest 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vonnegut himself is always pointing it out (his smoking habit, and that he smokes Pall Malls). I remember reading something he wrote (sorry, can't source) where he refers to himself as "an old fart with my Pall Malls". I also remember reading an interview, maybe the Playboy Interview, where he said that he tried to give up smoking once but his weight doubled and he got all sorts of other problems so he took it up again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.245.98 (talk • contribs) 22:26, September 24, 2006

I agree that a lot of the trivia can be merged into the rest of the article. It also needs verification. Crunch 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a new heading, "Vonnegut in pop culture" to house some of the items from the Trivia section. I still think we need a reference for the cigarette smoking detail: the fact that he smokes, the brand of the cigarettes and the quote attributed to him about smoking. I also find it unusual that an 83 year old man smokes Pall Malls without evidence of severe tobacco-related illness. Crunch 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it is unsourced but my girlfriend knows Kurt's grandson quite well and has met Kurt a few times: as of a few years ago he still smokes Pall Malls like a chimney. She says "about a pack an hour". This can definitely be sourced because almost every interviewer makes a comment about his smoking habit. Inoculatedcities 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the bit on the BBC news website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/629620.stm) where he says: "I'm suing a cigarette company because on the package they promised to kill me, and yet here I am." Obviously no longer but I'm sure you get the point Soarhead77 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia section was almost entirely unsourced, and reads like the sort of folklore that pervades Internet trivia sites. Unfortunately, that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability. I added citations where sources could be found, and attached {{fact}} where none could be easily located. If these items cannot be verified they should be removed. --MCB 06:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The asterisk can also be found in Galapagos indicating the character is about to die. I haven't read Breakfast of Champions yet, so I'm not sure which meaning is more appropriate. User:Annonomous 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List

No list of his works? Aww, man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.146.219 (talk • contribs) 22:34, December 12, 2005

When I created the "Vonnegut" template I cut and pasted from what used to be a list of his works contained in the article. Is the template not working? Does for me though. --Easter Monkey 12:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to knock the tamplate but I think it would be better if it listed the books with the year in an actual list not right after each other like it does here. Thoughts?--DannyBoy7783 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To easy. I don't have the time right at the moment to add all of the dates for the ones that aren't already in the individual wiki article for those that I didn't get to. The template looks "cooler" then just a straight boring list. --Easter Monkey 11:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "too easy" is supposed to mean. Either way, the site is about information and ease of searching not how cool it looks.--DannyBoy7783 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In what respect would a list improve on the current template? It already has the dates of each book and the books themselves arranged in chronological order. How would a list be more informative or user-friendly than the template? A list would double the length of the article, which certainly would not increase the "ease of searching". Gorilla Jones 08:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"To easy" in that you want dates, you got dates. As Gorilla said, it's already in chrono order anyway. And if we can get an element of coolness and still convey the info, why the heck not? I can't imagine what you mean by "ease of searching" --- if you're looking for a Vonnegut book, search for Kurt Vonnegut, look for the list of his works, click on the link, and there you are. Sounds easy enough to me. --Easter Monkey 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunscreen

I think something should be added about the whole sunscreen debacle. [1] anyone??? -Andrew Markiewicz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.198.13 (talk • contribs) 23:08, March 25, 2006

Friends?

I took out part of this statement "In 1974, Venus on the Half-Shell, a book by Philip José Farmer aping the style of Vonnegut and attributed to Kilgore Trout, was published. This action caused a falling out of the two friends and some confusion amongst readers." It is my understanding that Vonnegut hardly knew Farmer. He said in an interview that he had never met him. They were not friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.27.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, July 5, 2006

Appearance on Daily Show

[2] This should somehow be referenced I think, particularly under politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VarunRajendran (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Errata

In "Fates Worse Than Death" Vonnegut says his first wife's name is Jane Marie née Cox, not Jill. Jill is the second wife. He also mentions in the same book that Jane dies of cancer, so I don't know if your mention of divorce is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.163.133 (talk • contribs) 12:21, January 11, 2006

The "Family" section contradicts itself a tad. I don't know whether his daughter Lily is a biological relative or not (I don't really know anything about his family), but someone should look into that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.221.136.117 (talk • contribs) .

I reworded some of the Family section having to do with the adoptions; the previous language was very confusing. MCB 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Error in quotation from Dr. Mark Vonnegut. He is quoted as saying: "If these commentators can so badly misunderstand and underestimate an utterly unguarded English-speaking 83-year-old man with an extensive public record of exactly what he thinks, maybe we should worry about how well they understand an enemy they can't figure out what to call."[4] There is probably a word left out -- query -- record of saying exactly what he thinks? Janice Vian, Ph.D. 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my hunch was wrong, and after checking Mark Vonnegut's editorial in the Boston Globe, I have changed the quote back to its original form, which is somewhat grammatically odd.Janice Vian, Ph.D. 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut's page is not for advertising fo the World Can't Wait)

Nor is it for advertising Cornell University, the U of Chicago, or Slaughterhouse 5. Shall we remove those references too? His endorsement of a statement comparing the Bush Agenda to fascism is a snapshot of his mind and a significant act, and thus a worthwhile contribution to the Politics section of this page. Why do you assume that posting this information is an endorsement or an advertisement? Did it ever occur to you that someone opposed to WCW might consider this information important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.155.82 (talk • contribs) .

You are correct, and that is why nobody has gone around adding highly POV statements about Cornell, U Chicago, etc to the pages of every notable graduate of these schools. There are countless endorsers to this petition and the effort to place a lengthy description of it on every endorser's article obviously amounts to an attempt to spam Wikipedia to increase the petitions visibility. If there were anything notable about his endorsement, if he talked about it publicly in an interview, if there was media coverage of it, etc. then there would be reason to add it. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end. Thanks. Fightindaman 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of the document as a "petition" shows that if you have even bothered to read it, you have not understood it. It is not a petition. It is a call to action outside the normal channels of political activity. What exactly about the description is "highly POV"? It is an objective characterization of what the statement is about. 63.199.155.82 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read it and I do understand it and that is really irrelevant to the matter. The fact is that the statement and links which you have gone around adding to countless articles read like advertisements. Calling the group anti-fascist is a POV statement because calling Bush a fascist is POV. Fightindaman 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, a lot of groups describe themselves as anti-fascist but have an extemely huge definition of fascism that includes virtually all right-wing thinkers, given the continuing debate over the definition of fascism, it seems like anti-fascist is simply a self-label, in actuality meaning extremely little, but people are entitled to their self-labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.143.179 (talk • contribs) 08:14, April 12, 2007

Which Generation?

The intro originally read that Vonnegut was born to fourth-gen German American parents, and an anon recently changed it to fifth gen. I took this as an opportunity to confirm the original before reverting, but what I found described Vonnegut as "A fourth-generation German-American now living in easy circumstances on Cape Cod..." So wouldn't this mean that he was born to third-generation German-American parents? Fightindaman 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wherabouts

The biography says that Vonnegut moved to Massachusetts following the fire at his townhouse. A recent entry says that he has moved back to Manhattan. Could we have a cite for the latter claim? And if its true, the sentence about him living in Massachusetts needs to be updated to the past tense. Anson2995 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Best I could find is a reference to a 2006 interview that mentions talking to Vonnegut in his Manhattan apartment. [3] I'll presume that as the authoritative cite unless somebody offers something else, and I'll make the necessary clarification in the article. Anson2995 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - patents

Kurt Vonnegut seems to hold a patent for an easy-clean tobacco pipe, filed in 1944. See: [4]

Interesting. Is this the author's patent or his father's? Doctormatt 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be his father, the architect Kurt Vonnegut, Sr.. The author was in the army from 1943-1945 and most certainly not pursuing patent applications. In Fates Worse Than Death, the author writes: "The truth was that the Great Depression and then World War II, during which almost all building stopped, came close to gutting [my father] as an architect. From the time he was forty-five until he was sixty-one he had almost no work." (ie, 1929-1945). Anson2995 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriages

Somebody added an entry that said Vonnegut and Kremenz had divorced in 1991. It was reported that they filed for divroce but that the petition was later withdrawn.[5] They are still married. Anson2995 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. --The Outhouse Mouse 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? Tvoz |talk 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says that he lived with Jill until 2000, but doesn't mention anything about their separation, and her own article claims that she is his widow, meaning that they were still married. Does anyone know anything about this? Academic Challenger 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that - all reports that I've read refer to Jill Krementz as his wife, not his former wife.Tvoz |talk 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

=But were they separated after the fire? Academic Challenger 03:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so -one piece [6] said after he fell asleep smoking and caused a major fire in their town house: "After the doctors finally released him, Kurt went off to a month's rehab, and when he returned to 48th Street, the locks on the doors had been changed. Jill was going to teach him not to smoke at home. Kurt checked into a hotel for a few days, a peace treaty was eventually signed and a somewhat stormy marriage resumed." And as I said, all sources I've seen say she's his widow or wife - I think our article had it wrong. Tvoz |talk 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

more pop culture trivia

in the niven/pournelle book "inferno" (based on dante's work), vonnegut has a tomb in the circle of hell occupied by creators of false religions. he's not named, but the tomb has a flashing sign that says "so it goes", a common phrase of vonnegut's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.68.224 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Inline citations

Footnote format. Several long URLs in column 1 overlap footnotes in column 2 (with my browser - Firefox 1.5) There is precedent for a change that would prevent this - give link a title (Title of article refered to followed (outside link) with publication. I'll leave edit to someone else - dont have time to do it right now. Fholson 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is only one inline citation (recently added) while all of the other citations are mere links in this format: [7] (btw, does anyone know what these are called?) So I think the single inline citation should be removed unless we can change all of the citations to inline citations. JianLi 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Death/So it goes

I feel it would be a very well suited tribute to Vonnegut to add the line "So it goes" after mentioning his death in the Personal Life section, in reference to Slaughterhouse-5. Any feelings? I know the person who deleted it doesn't like it, but why? AQ 24.168.130.150 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read What Wikipedia is Not. As sad as I am to hear of his passing, Wikipedia is not the place to have a tribute to Mr. Vonnegut. Kntrabssi 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So it goes.

I understand that the bare phrase "so it goes" is unencyclopedic. However, the phrase is literarily significant, and it seems entirely appropriate to mention, in the section on his own death, the trope he used in reference to every one of the dozens of deaths in his most reknowned work. I suggest doing so with words similar to: "Vonnegut summed up such events more than 100 times in Slaughterhouse-Five: "So it goes."" Craigbutz 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll keep deleting unencyclopedic content. So it goes. Billbrock 06:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Our job is to note matters of record, not comment on them. Rockpocket 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a factual statement about the author's views on death is commentary. Allowing this more academic version will discourage people from repeatedly adding "so it goes" alone, which does not fit stylistically. Craigbutz 06:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article in ny times is not available without login.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.209.163 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 April 2007.

Does the phrase "so it goes" in the section on Vonnegut's death really need to go? I've reverted it a couple of times myself, but now I'm beginning to wonder if that's really necessary. It didn't sit right with me at first. Now, it occurs to me: Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against irony, and the content obviously isn't malicious. It's small and I don't think it could do much except honor the spirit of the late Mr. Vonnegut. --Moralis (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorry I just reverted its most recent addition, it means nothing to uninformed readers as a stand alone comment.--Alf ^melmac 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate: I fail to see how the phrase violates Wikipedia policy, and in light of the circumstances, I think perhaps it's not inappropriate... and I also think we have better things to do as a community than to keep removing it. There is significantly less encyclopedic information out there that we could be removing right now. --Moralis (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One could discuss Dresden's effect on Vonnegut's worldview, integrating the tag line into an (appropriately sourced) discussion of Slaughterhouse-Five. Many (most?) readers of this article have never read Vonnegut & will not understand the reference. We look for new knowledge in encyclopedia articles, not irony. However, you honor Vonnegut's memory by asking the question. Billbrock 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure someone will come in and eradicate the little So It Goes that someone put at the end of the news of his death. But I hope it stays a while as a tribute to KV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malnova (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 April 2007.

Gone daddy gone. Someday you and I will be gone, too. So it goes. Billbrock 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added, with citation, and I hope it sticks. Tvoz |talk 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say "hopefully Tvoz's edit here will ameliorate this", but I got edit conflicted - no surprise on that here today ;)--Alf ^melmac 07:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Tvoz. Though I imagine we can expect plenty more attempts at adding it to the death section over the enxt 24hrs. So it goes, indeed. Rockpocket 07:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See below. Tvoz |talk 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which generation would that be? --Guinnog 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put it back and hope we don't need to take this to an rfc or such - I was one of the people who, with regrets, removed it from the Death section because although I appreciate the irony and rightness of it as per Redsxfenway (go Yankees), it was not right for Wikipedia. It's my generation, and I share the feelings, but after all is said and done, it just doesn't belong here as a commentary. But it is a totally sound and important literary point, no less than "unstuck in time", and I think it absolutely should have been in the article all along. If someone has a suggestion for a more elegant or better place to put it, I'm all ears - but just removing it is simply not ok. The Boston Globe - and the NYTimes, by the way - saw fit to single it out in their obituary, out of the tens of thousands - perhaps millions - of words that he wrote. That is notability. Tvoz |talk 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Being" is a funny accident. The tagline is a bittersweet way of saying that death is in the nature of life-- WP:NOR? ;-). WP takes no position on the nature of existence. But by all means, work the thing in by explaining it in context. Billbrock 08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the phrase "so it goes" might be a fitting end for this author, I do not believe Wikipedia should add this in as it gives a non-academic perspective/point-of-view of his death. I also would like to know where Wikipedia states it is a "presentation of our generations' feelings"? This is the first time I've ever heard such purpose of Wikipedia. As far as I know, such purpose violates the NPOV policy and would open to the debate of "What is our generation's feeling of [article]?". As another thought, do we do such things to other authors' deaths? As in trying to add in a remark or comment of their death by referencing their own works?--BirdKr 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If necessary it can perhaps be mentioned that the phrase is used in relation to his death by several news sources.[8] No generation owns Wikipedia though. Granted males 16-35 "own" Wikipedia as much as any generation can, but I don't think that's even the "our generation" referred to.--T. Anthony 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that people will agree that the way the phrase has been added is encyclopedic, and notable. It's not there as POV of his death anymore. If some choose to interpret its inclusion in the Works section as a tribute to the man's genius, a nod to him upon his death, that's ok with me - the eye of the beholder, and all. But I will argue strenuously for its legitimate inclusion as a literary point. Tvoz |talk 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes." belongs with the mention of Kurt Vonnegut's death. If you don't agree, you should not be editting his page, because you don't understand him. Besides, it is three little words, let it go. Ugnut 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually a Wiki stickler, but I am inclined to agree here. If you can't deal with "So it goes." as it relates to Vonnegut, then you really have no business editing the article. KyuzoGator 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

i say leave it up. geoff 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes." does not belong in the "death" section of the article. The section on his death is supposed to provide information on his death; it is not there to create an emotional spark or feeling about the authors own feelings about death or life. There could be a whole section on "so it goes" as it is an important catch phrase related to the author but adding it as a trailer to his death section is completely unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Argueing that someone does not "understand" Vonnegut if they don't see a certain poit of view shows a complete bias and lack of NPOV that also does not belong in the article.--Csfgdead 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article including "So it goes" as a literary device and an attributable quote to Mr. Vonnegut is completely acceptable. Wikipedia is not Facebook or Myspace. We need to be as academic as possible. This isn't the place to run around posting tributes to dead authors, as sad as it is to see them pass. With hope, this problem has resolved itself, but as a matter of precedent, there SHOULD be a policy written on this if it isn't already. Kntrabssi 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Vonnegut said that, when he died, his preferred joke would be for people to say, "He is in Heaven now." Mind you, I don't support adding either that or "so it goes" to the article, because while both will be appropriate in obituaries and tributes, neither is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "So it goes." really not encyclopedic? Think about it for a second. The words "so it goes" don't editorialize anything. Technically, saying, "Kurt Vonnegut died. So it goes." is just reiterating what happened and can be interpreted as being a description as well as an extremely fitting tribute. I say keep it. KyuzoGator 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems we need to take a poll. Shiggity 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes" is a commentary. Wikipedia articles do not add commentary, they simply report on facts from verifiable sources. If anyone involved in this discussion can find a Wikipedia policy that says that commentary is okay when it's about someone we really like and respect, I'd love to see a link. Moreover, it isn't even a very good tribute. It's like adding "Live long and prosper" to Leonard Nimoy- cliched, and a minimization of the value of the man's work. Frankly, in addition to not meeting Wikipedia guidelines, I just think it's tacky. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FisherQueen, maybe you can point out the violation of Wikipedia's guidelines with a link, because I don't see any. Shiggity 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I totally understand why people want it included, and there is absolutely the 60s part of me that would enjoy seeing it stay - but as FisherQueen said this is not an obituary, and it's not a tribute. Of course it is editorializing - it's a meta comment on an event. We don't allow "George Harrison died. All things must pass." That same part of me would like to see that too - but it's not going to happen, and if we want it to then we have to adjust the nature of the encyclopedia across the board. I'm not saying that's not worth exploring, but realistically, it's not going to happen just because people re-insert the phrase here. Sooner or later someone will lock the page up completely. Make a proposal wherever such things are done - you may get a good deal of support from people who would like Wikipedia to be more elegantly written, becoming something more than another Britannica. But this isn't the way to accomplish that, I'm afraid. And no, we don't need a poll. Tvoz |talk 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then a link to where it is explicitly forbidden should be posted here, because otherwise there's no good reason to get rid of it. If you say we don't need a poll, I say fine, we can just keep editing it directly. Shiggity 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TONE ("Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone."), plus the basic issue of original research, if we're not explicitly attributing the quote to anyone, in respect to Vonnegut's death. --McGeddon 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be seen as propaganda and/or advocacy by those unfamiliar with the subject, once they've puzzled out why it was there and then what it means, prop. and ad. are not on, see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.--Alf ^melmac 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut has been a hero and inspiration to me. So it goes is a great sentiment for all who cared about him. This is an encyclopedia, however, and therefore cannot include something much better suited for a eulogy or obit. Also, any who truly followed the sentiment wouldn't put it on an encyclopedia, they should accept the death with a "so it goes" and move on with life. I believe that's what he would've wanted. Rest in Peace, Kurt Vonnegut. ReverendG 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, and I can see no serious reason in the least why we should have this phrase in an encyclopedia. I hope this ridiculous "tribute" phase fizzles out quickly (at least before it lands in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars). Tony Myers 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per McGeddon, perhaps there is someone to quote who said it today - or someone could write up something that talks about the many obits today that use the phrase "so it goes" in their leads, etc - and with refs, that should stand in the death section. But the reason I said we don't need a poll is it isn't a matter of reaching consensus - even if every editor of this article says he or she wants it in, having the phrase alone as a comment I think still will be pulled or the page locked because it goes against several wikipedia policies that other people will invoke (TONE, OR, RS, NOT, maybe NPOV, possibly others). Even the completely supportable addition of it as a literary device was (incorrectly I believe) deleted the first time I added it - so rather than trying to defy the structure of the encyclopedia, maybe a creative solution will satisfy. I reverted it once, but not any more - I'll leave that to others, but I am quite sure the others will be there. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So why not quote the newspaper obituaries after the line about his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.220.224 (talk • contribs) - 4:36, 12 April 2007

Try it out.Tvoz |talk 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow quoting a newspaper or even explaining what the pharse means is one thing; but, to add it obscurly to the end of the section on his death is rediculous. It provides no information to the reader on what the phrase meant to the author and if you are unfimiliar with the author the phrase looks like vandelism. This page is to provide information on the author. Most the people reading it will not be overly familiar with his work, which is why they are looknig him up. This article is to provide that information *not* to provide a fitting (in some's POV) last phrase to honor his death.--Csfgdead 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe it should be hyperlinked to something. That's how that is usually solved. Shiggity 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the hyperlink as well. A hyperlink is used to find more information about a topic mentioned in an article but I have never seen it used in this way. There is never just a random statement that is put into an article with a hyperlink. I understand that "So it goes." is not a random statement to Vonnegut fans but that is not who the article is intended for and from a uninformed POV (which is who the article is intended for) I do believe it looks very randon, maybe like vandelism, and def unencylopedic. --Csfgdead 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csfgdead (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the addition of this tribute phrase, it is clear that Wikipedia guidelines don't support it. Is it appropriate to vandal-warn those who persist in adding it? Should repeat additions lead to temporary user blocks? -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but until someone cites a specific violation of the guidelines, your removing it constitutes vandalism as much as my adding it. Shiggity 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service, obituary column, or place to express sentiments. WP:NOT covers this. -/- Warren 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This was perhaps one of the most touching things I have ever read along many years of wikipedia. It would be a shame to see it cast away entirely. Maybe the guidelines prohibit it, maybe not, so if the rule lawyers want to make a change, how about: As Vonnegut would say, "So it goes". 76.99.57.18 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be touching. The proposed change is still a violation of WP:OR and WP:TONE. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd been adding the {uw-joke1} warning. I'm not sure it's the right one, but it seems closest. What do folks think? -- Narsil 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Linda Ellerbee also used to say "And so it goes". It would probably be sufficient, and a good compromise, to cite a well-written obit which is titled "so it goes"... the point of that being to show the verifiable fame of this quote. Wahkeenah 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's been suggested - someone needs to do it though. (Ellerbee was quoting Vonnegut when she adopted that phrase as her sign-off.) As for vandal-warning: I'd support a short amnesty after the death of someone like this for things like this - let the text stand for a little while and then remove it - what I've heard described as a "slow revert" - and no, I'm not reporting vandalism on this one, not today. To each his own. Tvoz |talk 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also inclined to cut the users some slack after a famous event. Once the frenzy dies down, the "slow revert" that you mention can be applied. Wahkeenah 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If people are particularly persistant, one could always direct them to the discussion here, as explanantion for why it is not appropriate. Rockpocket 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the slow revert in cases of celebrity news events. Just the other day I read a CNET article critical of Wikipedia's response to the DNA results announcement regarding Anna Nicole Smith's baby's paternity. CNET quoted liberally from reverted edits. In short, the media is watching, and the media is especially watching these types of articles during moments of breaking news. If something isn't appropriate, the more quickly we correct it, the less credibility we lose. Rklawton 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, Rklawton, for almost all such events - 100% about Anna Nicole, or Imus or Elizabeth Edwards, or any positive or negative news or news-y event. But let's just take a step back and recognize that adding "So it goes", Vonnegut's catchphrase about a death used exactly as he would have minutes and hours after his death, is really not harmful to our credibility. If anything it might enhance it - it shows that we're not all culture-less teenage boys (no offense intended to any of the 3 groups I just smeared). I hear you, and in the long run I think it has to be removed or placed in an encyclopedic way as has been discussed - but I think a little benign neglect is not the worst thing here. Tvoz |talk 19:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, the only CITED source against adding this has been "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone." But this is subjective, as it goes on to say "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter." To say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service, obituary column, or place to express sentiments" without citing a direct quote, and instead just writing "WP:NOT covers this" is immaterial. It DOES say "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Kurt Vonnegut was NOT my friend, or my relative, AND he was notable. {uw-joke1} is inappropriate. "So it goes" is NOT a joke. It is a literary reference. As Tvoz said, it really isn't harmful to credibility and might enhance it -- if anything, it displays the detailed nature with which articles on Wikipedia are created and updated. There's a difference between sloppy, casual writing not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, and a clever addition to an accurate statement that is appreciated by those who immediately understand it, and perhaps encouraging the unenlightened to read more. As Wikipedia is a reflection on human culture, it should also reflect a human-like approach, not machine-cold, pedantic, stilted phrases governed by a bunch of rules that have been arbitrarily inferred from what are supposed to be general guidelines. Shiggity 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and we strive to be a serious encyclopedia (see the Pseudoscience RfA general principles, for example). That means writing in a impartial, detached, and formal style. The writing should not be 'clever' and should not contain literary references. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to find in policy in general, since it is usually just accepted. I'll look into strengthening the relevant areas. --Philosophus ^T 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not easy to find in the policy because it isn't IN the policy. However, if you ever do find something relevant, I'd be happy to take heed. Shiggity 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says to "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves". "So it goes" is fine as a literary reference if we explain that it is a relevant literary reference (so long as the relevance isn't just one editor's WP:OR), but really it needs a direct quote from a notable source, from someone who's actually used the phrase when talking about Vonnegut's death. We all know that Vonnegut would have used the line himself today, but we can't state that as a fact, we can only state it as an opinion (which doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia), or as a quote from a notable source, if such a quote exists. --McGeddon 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But the phrase is itself not an opinion. We are not asserting an opinion, and so it doesn't violate that part of WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiggity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It does assert particular views. --Philosophus ^T 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it conflicts with WP:NOR as well. --Philosophus ^T 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And once again, without a direct quote, saying it "conflicts with WP:FOO" is worthless. Shiggity 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These pages usually have simple sections or bulleted lists. "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts [...] without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is the relevant clause of WP:NOR. --McGeddon 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Read as a one-sentence addition to the facts of his death, it's an opinion about the nature of life. If this was the opinion of a notable contemporary being quoted in an obituary, then it's possibly encyclopaedic. If it's just the opinion of an editor, then it fails WP:NPOV. --McGeddon 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And it advocates a philosophical outlook. Not on.--Alf ^melmac 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow quoting a newspaper or even explaining what the pharse means is one thing; but, to add it obscurly to the end of the section on his death is rediculous. It provides no information to the reader on what the phrase meant to the author and if you are unfimiliar with the author the phrase looks like vandelism. This page is to provide information on the author. Most the people reading it will not be overly familiar with his work, which is why they are looknig him up. This article is to provide that information *not* to provide a fitting (in some's POV) last phrase to honor his death.--Csfgdead 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a meta comment connecting his philosophical writings about the nature of (life and) death with his own passing. Adding it without specific attribution or context is an original synthesis of ideas, and is no different than adding que sera, sera or such is life to the end of the paragraph about his death. It may mean something to those familiar with Vonnegut, but to anyone else its just a personal reflection on his death. We don't do personal reflections. Rockpocket 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be locked with the phrase removed. Many people will be visiting the site and it really puts Wiki in a bad light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csfgdead (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Let's just agree here that it shouldn't be included. We can then refer anyone who changes it to this discussion. The hidden comment should be a bit of a clue too. I don't think it should be protected. --Guinnog 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I am not one to encourage locking an article but am concerned as I have checked the article periodically throughout the day and half the time it has been there. I am a huge Wiki fan and use it professionally and personally all the time and hate to give critics of the site any ammo.--Csfgdead 22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think we need to do something. Maybe we should get some kind of Ruling From On Wiki-High about this issue. (One thing I'm not clear on--if the same editor adds the same text over and over, despite being reverted, is he violating WP:3RR? He's "reverting" in the sense that he's undoing other people's reverts, thus reverting back to the way the article was after he made the change. To be specific, is it time to put a {3rr} warning tag on Shiggity's page?)

In any event, I think that 'so it goes' is inappropriate and glib. When I blog-posted about Vonnegut's death, my subject line was "so it goes". Lots of obits are saying it in their headlines. But in the encyclopedia's biography page, no, it's not appropriate. -- Narsil 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Incidentally, User:Shiggity has been given a 3rr warning already, and has chosen to delete it from their page, which is fine. But they have been warned and have read the warning. 3rr is one of the few absolute rules we have here. --Guinnog 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Shiggity has been given a 3rr warning already, and has chosen to delete it from their page, which is fine.

— Guinnog

Actually, I don't think that is fine. Isn't there a rule against deleting warnings from one's own talk page? The whole idea is that other editors (and ultimately admins) should be able to come along and say, "Huh, he's been warned before, time to kick it up a notch." -- Narsil 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been the subject of some debate, but the consensus the last time I looked is that registered users may remove warnings. They're easy to find in the history anyway. The rationale is that if they remove them they have read them. Feel free to post at the proper place if they break the rule. --Guinnog 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Live and learn! Thanks for setting me straight on that. -- Narsil 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, he very courteously acknowledged the 3RR warning on my talk page, and said he wouldn't revert again. I think that, while he disagrees strongly, he will abide by the rules. 'Cause if we couldn't disagree and still play nicely, Wikipedia wouldn't work,, would it? -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I mentioned to Narsil almost exactly what Guinnog said here before reading it just now. Shiggity 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shiggety, I said that I think we should allow it to stand for a time, but that ultimately we would have to remove it, unless it was grounded in some quotable source. I recommended an amnesty time so well-meaning adders aren't blocked. But ultimately, you haven't said why you think it should be in other than to claim there's no policy against it, despite the policies cited. Again, it would be the same as saying George Harrison died of lung cancer. All things must pass. Harrison's commentary on death, well-known, touching, lovely - and unencyclopedic. Would you add that? I regret this, but I just don't see how it can go any other way. You said it's not an opinion - but if it isn't then what is it? A philosophic meta comment? Surely you're not saying it's a verifiable fact. FInd some precedent that convinces me - I'd like to be convinced. Tvoz |talk 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's really true that the media are "watching" wikipedia, there are much larger problems than whether the article says "so it goes". By far, the greatest threat to whatever credibility wikipedia has is the policy of allowing anyone to edit it. 24.225.83.99 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

put So it Goes in the encyclopedia entry. I should go there and it shows respect for Mr Vonnegut. Wikipedia and its contributors should not act like automatons and automatically remove this very Vonnegutian of terms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.181.199 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 April 2007.

And "Didn't he do well" on Bruce Forsyth when he leaves the building? (sarcasm)--Alf ^melmac 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Kntrabssi 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misread WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which relates to "departed friends and relatives" who are not otherwise notable. KyuzoGator 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It also says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This includes all of the material involved. It is ultimately unprofessional to add our own little tributes to articles which are supposed to be academic and serious. You are welcome to add your memorial to Vonnegut on your talk page, but not on the article concerning him. I'm as sad as anyone else to see him pass, but Wikipedia is not a memorial or a tribute site. Kntrabssi 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr...that's really your take on what policy "should" be. It says "subjects of...articles," not "every portion of an article must be notable." And even if it did, that wouldn't make any sense. So I'm glad that it doesn't. Shiggity 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys are assholes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.201.99 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the insight. (And some of us are not guys.) Tvoz |talk 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To everyone who believes so urgently and intensely in links beginning with WP, in those above any kind of common sense or decency, I'd like to suggest taking a break from the holy work you're doing here and ponder the suggestions of Paul Lazzaro in "Slaughterhouse-Five". (You have a copy, right? Of course you do.)222.254.129.141 08:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't, 222. has already asked us to ""'Go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut" a number of times, which have been removed and now he tells us the same via this. Thanks for even more advocacy.--Alf ^melmac 08:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

222: ::Common sense? Does my Bruce Forsyth example of "Didn't he do well" not adequately show you how inappropriate that sort of edit is? No? Maybe when Margaret Thatcher dies we should have "the Lady's not for turning" as a standalone sentence after the news of her death, or when Arnold Schwarzenegger departs we add "I'll be back".--Alf ^melmac 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"He started so he finished" Rockpocket 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arnold + "I'll be back" = Vonnegut + "So it goes"? There's my point proven in emphatic fashion. My regards to the mooooon. 222.254.129.141 08:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No thank YOU, you rightly point out the deliberate inclusion of the non-advocacy related statement in the examples, showing that the inclusion of Vonnegut's is advocacy that the reader should heed.--Alf ^melmac 09:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

just a quick 2 cents addition from little old me. the fact there is this much discussion on keeping "so it goes" to this article is exactly what's WRONG with wikipedia. rather than always trying to seem so reputable and being so concerned with what a bunch of "old fart" academics think, wikipedia should embrace neat little things like that. wikipedia is new and different. adding "so it goes" after KV's death is exactly the kind of thing that I love about wikipedia - finding hidden treasures like that which you won't find in britanica or wherever. shame on many of you for getting twisted up in a waste-of-time game of politics when you should be enjoying this fantastic NEW and DIFFERENT type of encyclopedia. SnaX 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Some time, use Google Maps to get travel directions from New York to London. One of the steps is "Swim Across the Atlantic Ocean 3,400 miles". That little in-joke doesn't detract from Google being a powerhouse of definitive information. Very rarely, Wikipedia should be able to embrace an idiosyncracy like "so it goes," especially since it is so extremely valid in defining Vonnegut (which is what I thought this article was supposed to do in the first place). I agree with the people above who have commented that if a Wiki editor can't stand to see "so it goes" in KV's article, they really don't know enough about KV to be authoritative in editing it. KyuzoGator 15:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The google maps gag is funny. It's also completely in keeping with Google Maps's purpose, which is to provide the most direct directions from anywhere to anywhere. Wikipedia has articles that work within Wikipedia's purpose, to provide factual, sourced information on a wide range of subjects, and which are also funny and offbeat. A good parallel to the Google Maps gag would be the Wikipedia article Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But adding "so it goes" doesn't fit within Wikipedia's purpose, so the google maps joke isn't a good parallel to it. In addition, you're one of several people who have said that those opposing the addition just don't know enough about Vonnegut, and if we really cared about Vonnegut, we'd want to add it. I take offense at that. I know quite a bit about Vonnegut. I fell in love with "Harrison Bergeron" when I was eleven years old, and I've been hooked ever since. I've read and loved all his books, studied them at university and written about them. I know how he used "so it goes" in his works- as a way of making light of life and death, saying that death is inevitable and not worth noting or mourning as anything significant. Using it after his death is saying that his death, like those in his novels, is an insignificant and inevitable cosmic joke- that's not just a personal opinion, it's disrespectful to Vonnegut's memory. You are free to disagree with me, but Wikipedia policy affirms that the phrase is not appropriate for this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FisherQueen. This proposed "joke" isn't funny or original, and neither does it show respect for the great man. I too find it offensive to characterise this editorial position as necessarily arising from not knowing or understanding Vonnegut. I have loved his work since I was 20 years old, and was devastated to hear of his death. All the more reason to keep his article looking good, encyclopedic and conforming to Wikipedia core policies. --Guinnog 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how it's against policy. Also the article Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, which I was looking at the other day, entirely by coincidence, (!) is a strange name, but what else would you call it? I told someone else about it and was able to find it again by remembering the article was "Buffalo, typed eight times." Point being, that article is appropriately named, though "silly," whereas this, where perhaps unencyclopedic, would seem to tend to draw interest in Kurt Vonnegut and this article. The two are different, but the persons demanding a purge on here of all non-formal writing will be glad to know that I *am* done pushing this forward with reverts. Shiggity 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also since I just implied adding "So it goes" is *likely* non-formal, I would admit that it is *likely* a violation of WP:TONE. I still think adding it has more benefit that drawbacks but since I'm abstaining anyway that point is moot. Shiggity 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment- if half of the effort that went into adding "so it goes" to the opening of this article was actually used to make this article better, this thing would reach FA in no time. I think that would be a better way to honor the man. Remember 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

UU?

I'd never heard of Vonnegut being a Unitarian Universalist until today. Can anyone give any conformation for this other than a link to a link of a list compiled by a UU member? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this claim is based on a line in Fates Worse Than Death -- "In order not to seem a spiritual quadriplegic to strangers trying to get a fix on me, I sometimes say I am a Unitarian Universalist (I breathe)." Speaking as a Unitarian Universalist who gets and appreciates the joke, I'd say this is pretty shaky evidence. Garrick.linn 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that he was a Unitarian. According to UU World (a magazine for Unitarian Universalists) "The All Souls Unitarian Church of Indianapolis, Indiana, celebrated its centennial September 21, 2003.... The congregation toured its previous church home, now a private residence, built by author Kurt Vonnegut's grandfather. Vonnegut's parents were members of the church."[9] There is also this excerpt from a sermon at the Sioux City UU Church:

Freethinker or not is Vonnegut really a Unitarian or did he just have similar ideas? He has said that he is. Unitarian minister Francis Scott Corey Wicks in Indianapolis married Vonnegut’s parents. Vonnegut’s father, a prominent Indianapolis architect designed the first building for the congregation. His parents were members of All Souls in Indianapolis and UU minister Jack Mendelsohn named his son for him. Jack Mendelsohn first met Vonnegut the author at his father’s 1957 funeral. Vonnegut’s son Kurt even once considered becoming a UU minister. Vonnegut has even admitted to attending a Unitarian church, “The minister said one Easter Sunday that, if we listened closely to the bell on his church, we would hear it was singing, over and over again, “No hell, no hell, no hell.” Vonnegut was the 1986 Ware Lecturer at General Assembly in 1986 and in memory of William Ellery Channing on his 200th birthday at First Parish, Cambridge, Massachusetts. In “Who Am I this Time” which was made into a television program for American Playhouse one of the characters is Harry Nash who as a baby was left on the steps of the Unitarian Church.[10]

There is also this quote from Vonnegut addressing a Unitarian Congregation in Cambridge (January 27, 1980):

How on earth can religious people believe in so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash? ... The acceptance of a creed, any creed, entitles the acceptor to membership in the sort of artificial extended family we call a congregation. It is a way to fight lonliness. Any time I see a person fleeing from reason into religion, I think to myself, There goes a person who simply cannot stand being so goddamned lonely anymore.

Although this quote doesn't specifically say he is a Unitarian it is an important reference to the lack of a creed in Unitarian Universalism. It is backed up by the more solid quote from Fates Worse than Death: "I am an atheist (or at best a Unitarian who winds up in church quite a lot)." Although he didn't attend a Unitarian church regularly, this is by no means evidence that he wasn't of such beliefs - it is relatively common for many Unitarians to avoid attending sermons with any regularity (his quote being evidence). Also note that many Unitarian Universalists consider themselves Atheist, so this is also not something that would exclude him as a member. I hope this is enough to calm any doubts that he was not a Unitarian. Datapharmer 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The examples you provide support the idea that Vonnegut was friendly towards Unitarian Universalism as a faith tradition by way of his personal family history as well as a natural affinity for the kind of skeptical approach to religion that UUs try to embody, but neither of these are sufficient, in my opinion, to list him as a UU. To be a Unitarian Universalist is more than to simply share a compatible set of beliefs or even to speak at General Assembly...it is to personally and authentically claim the identity for oneself. If the only non-UU source we can find to support the notion that Vonnegut wholeheartedly identified as a Unitarian Universalist is the decidedly lukewarm "I am an atheist (or at best a Unitarian..." then I would argue that to list him as such is an act of celebrity appropriation. That said, I think that including a piece about his connection to Unitarian Universalism is entirely appropriate.Garrick.linn 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Garrick, I think it would be appropriate to change the article to reflect that there is a connection and that his self-identification with UUism is only speculated. Datapharmer 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Well pals, this interview with KV seems to me like a fairly clear affirmation of belonging to Humanist Unitarian tradition:

"THC: Have you been a humanist all of your life? Does humanism preclude the possibility that there is a God?

"KV: I'll say this line slowly so you can get it down word for word: Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism. Pretty good one, huh? Some people are just not willing to accept whatever evangelists say to be truth. My family came to America after the Civil War as freethinkers from Germany. They were speculators too, and wanted to get rich. But they also wanted to have their state defined by the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. The concept of freethinker was so specifically German, and thus it became unpopular after the Anti-German backlashes during and after WWI and WWII, when all German enthusiasms became unpopular. To survive, freethinkers became Unitarians -- and then humanists. God has not made himself known to us, and thus we expect no rewards and punishments in an afterlife. In our lives, we do our best to serve our community well, behave decently, and treat people well. The biggest advantages of Christianity are the congregations, which can serve as expanded families and close-knit communities." :::Crimson Interview by Christopher Blazejewski, May 19, 2000

--UVXR 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Death -> WP Main Page?

There were more serious American authors circa 1970, but none more popular. Vonnegut's death is currently the lead feature on the NY Times & Chgo Tribune homepages; it would be appropriate for the WP main page, Rule 5 notwithstanding. (From a US perspective, Vonnegut's death is perhaps the most newsworthy obit for 2007 to date.) A thorough copyedit of this article would certainly help. Billbrock 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is going to receive a lot of traffic in the next few days, lets try to get it up to at least GA standards. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP main page should contain the news of vonnegut's death. currently we have days old news on the news section.. i feel frustrated. Candymoan 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

like-minded people should head to main page disscussion.. i've already entered my disbelief.. okay, ITN does not list obituaries.. except for those who are notable experts in their field.. i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does? if it had been norman mailer or noam chomsky, i'm pretty sure the elite intellectuals running wikipedia would spend no time to turn the entire main page into a shrine.. the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit"?? i have been around for a long time, but i've never been nauseated until today by the policies and bureaucracy.. so it goes..Candymoan 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a significant world news event and should be included. KyuzoGator 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

R.I.P. (O.K., O.K., "so it goes".) Brutannica 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably too late, but didn't Anna Nicole Smith/Steve Irwin's death's hit the front page? Sam 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Theist?

"Interview Public Radio International (October 2006) If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC
Vonnegut's Blues For America 07 January, 2006 Sunday Herald" Sounds like he was at least an agnostic towards the end. Mayorcheese 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

VONNGEUT WAS AN ATHEIST! HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION. HE HAS BEEN QUOTED MANY TIMES REFERING TO HIM SELF AS AN ATHEIST AND MOCKING RELIGION. THE PROBLEM IS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIS USE OF SATIRE AND IRONY AND MANY WANT TO MISREPRESENT HIS BELIEFS. DON'T YOU THINK THAT COULD BE A TRIBUTE TO THE BEAUTY OF MUSIC AND NOT THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD??? YOU KNOW LIKE ALL THE EVIDENCE OF HIS LIFE SUGGESTS?

Kurt Vonnegut seems to have declared himself as an atheist on multiple occassions: In Fates Worse than Death: An Auotbiographical Collage of the 1980s. Interviewing for Free Inquiry magazine, Vonnegut said, "For at least four generations my family has been proudly skeptical of organized religion." In Palm Sunday (1981), an autobiography, Vonnegut quotes himself in a commencement speech, saying, "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974." Also in Palm Sunday, Vonnegut interviews himself, asking how he was affected by his study of anthropology at the University of Chicago. Vonnegut replies: "...it confirmed my atheism, which was the religion of my fathers anyway." Though the old man liked to joke about God, what a bastard he was, and though he has a sort of free-wheeling spirituality, Vonnegut made it clear he considered himself an atheist. SDali2008 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IFF

I cut this passage from the WWII section of the article. Not to delete it, but because it was both vague and misplaced.

Later, he joined the war against poverty by establishing what was known as the IFF, the International Feeding Fund. Although this is not widely known, Vonnegut played a crucial role in the short but effective life of this organization.

Billbrock 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulge / POW

More bio material desperately needed here; life-shaping events. Billbrock 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone could rework the following copyrighted material (from the NY Times News Service obit) then delete this copyrighted stuff (I'm off to bed):

In 1944, he was shipped to Europe with the 106th Infantry Division and shortly saw combat in the Battle of the Bulge. With his unit nearly destroyed, he wandered behind enemy lines for several days until he was captured and sent to a prisoner of war camp near Dresden, the architectural jewel of Germany. Assigned by his captors to make vitamin supplements, he was working with other prisoners in an underground meat locker when British and U.S. warplanes started carpet bombing the city, creating a firestorm above him. The work detail saved his life. Afterward, he and his fellow prisoners were assigned to remove the dead. "The corpses, most of them in ordinary cellars, were so numerous and represented such a health hazard that they were cremated on huge funeral pyres, or by flamethrowers whose nozzles were thrust into the cellars, without being counted or identified," he wrote in "Fates Worse Than Death."

Tx. Billbrock 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Home for sale

Here's a link to the sales page for the Indianapolis home:[11] It can be confirmed to be the Vonnegut home through this link:[12] I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic that his boyhood home is for sale (it's currently in the article), but if it is, this should satisfy the needed citation requirements. 64.35.225.1 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

random trivia error

Kurt Vonnegut also gave a commencement speech at Lehigh University in May, 2004, where he said the same quote that he is listed as saying at Ohio State: "If you really want to disappoint your parents, and don't have the nerve to be gay, go into the arts." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.54.86 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

recurring themes

The recurring themes bit is oddly worded. It makes it sound like Ice Nine is a recurring theme, rather than the more general harms caused by technological progress. --Ryan Wise 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice-nine

From the article:

In addition to recurring characters, there are also recurring themes and ideas. One of them is ice-nine, said to be a new form of ice with a different crystal structure from normal ice. When a crystal of ice-nine is brought into contact with liquid water, it becomes a seed that 'teaches' the molecules of liquid water to arrange themselves into ice-nine. However, this process is not easily reversible, as the melting point of ice-nine is 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit (45.8 degrees Celsius). Ice-nine could be considered a fictionalization of the real scientific controversy surrounding polywater, a hypothetical form of water which has since been disproved. Metaphorically, ice-nine represents any potentially lethal invention created without regard for the consequences. Ice-nine -- the eighth in a series of differently crystalizing ices with successively higher melting points -- is patently dangerous, as even a small piece of it dropped in the ocean would cause all the earth's water to solidify. (Vonnegut ignores the fact that this is thermodynamically impossible.) Yet it was created, simply because human beings like to create and invent.

Is a discussion of ice-nine--the scientific relevence or interpretation of the metaphor--really necessary to this article? Both Cat's Cradle and ice-nine have wiki articles, and I think such information should be placed in either of those articles, if they are relevant to Wikipedia at all. --buck 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Might a modification be practical, as to suggest that Vonnegut himself was concerned with the notion of technological progression? I think that completely deleting mention would be a stretch, but the current state is somewhat verbose, and appropriate for exploration in the alternate articles.-EarthRise33 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Vonnegut was a Luddite, he was just concerned about the lack of perspective. Ice-Nine was assumed to be a satire of such things as the guys who exploded the first nuclear bomb, not knowing for sure what would happen, i.e. whether it might set off a chain reaction that would destroy the earth (as Ice-Nine essentially did), but doing it anyway just to find out. Wahkeenah 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's still logical to retain a reference to ice-nine in order to flesh out Vonnegut's philosophy, regardless of what the philosophy is. -EarthRise33 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide the editor stays away from putting his own spin on it. Wahkeenah 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of Kurt Vonnegut

A section in this article is linked to the 'main article' List of the writings of Kurt Vonnegut, is there a point to this page that the template doesn't fulfill? If there isn't it should be humanely put down, if there is, it needs some work by the people in the know.--Alf ^melmac 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be a list of his novels... and then most importantly all his essays and writings. I don't know why those aren't ever given as much attention. the ones that are haphazardly found across the net.-BillDeanCarter 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks those who helped tidy that up, it now looks like it might be worth looking at...--Alf ^melmac 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Attempt

Does anyone have any info on his suicide attempt? I haven't researched it, but maybe more needs to be said about his suicide attempt and how that might have influenced his writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoftheroach2000 (talk • contribs) 13:33, March 12, 2007

The recent article on the BBC has a small bit of info about his suicide.[13]--76.215.17.251 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The LA Times Obituary says that he used sleeping pills and alcohol in 1984. This is the method utilized by his mother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.38.218 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

What constitutes 'trivia'?

On tonight's Daily Show a segment from Vonnegut's appearance was the "Your Moment of Zen", in lieu of the traditional birth and death dates, it was just 'So it goes.' On Colbert Report, Colbert finished the preview segment (prior to the theme song) with "Welcome to the Monkey House, this is the Colbert Report." Are either of these worthwhile to mention? Ryuzx 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

=Yes. Some might think that this is too much trivia, but we should be able to put in a lot of information about the reactions to his death, particularly since he was an author who wrote a lot about death. Academic Challenger 04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

image

As you can see by looking at Image:Vonnegut12.jpg, there are copyright problems with that image and it will probably eventually be deleted. Even if it were shrunk (it's way too big for fair use), we don't know who owns the copyright so we can't attribute them, which is required by wikipedia:fair use. I have found an image that will work: Image:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpg. It's fine if you can improve upon this, but please make sure you understand our fair use criteria before you upload anything. — coelacan — 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut sceptical of evolution?

VONNGEUT WAS AN ATHEIST! HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION. HE HAS BEEN QUOTED MANY TIMES REFERING TO HIM SELF AS AN ATHEIST AND MOCKING RELIGION. THE PROBLEM IS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIS USE OF SATIRE AND IRONY AND MANY WANT TO MISREPRESENT HIS BELIEFS. IF YOU LOOK UP THE ARTICLE THE MENTIONED QUOTES ARE IN REFERENCE TO YOU REALIZE HIS POINT WAS TO SHOW THE IMMATURE TRIBALISM OF THE FIGHTING OVER INTELLIGENT DESIGN, NOT A DISBELIEF IN EVOLUTION LIKE THE PARTIAL QUOTES SELECTED SUGGEST.

If you google around, you'll find several mentions of the following which Vonnegut apparently said in an interview with NPR: "Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design. It’s the scientists themselves are behaving tribally." and "They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines." If true, I find this rather remarkable and worthy of mention in the article. 82.181.221.102 10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. I'm Hardwick 10:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Might also be reasonable to mention, should we reference his take on evolution, that his work Galapagos makes extensive use of evolutionary principle? (While on this subject, Vonnegut also said "I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That’s why we’ve got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap" on the Daily Show, as noted by Wikiquote.) -EarthRise33 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut was a natural skeptic, and he was expressing feelings. That does not imply a refutation of evolution nor an endorsement of "intelligent design" of the type the religionists are currently pushing. Wahkeenah 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously it's not a refutation, but in the quote he does pretty explicitly indicate that in his opinion unguided natural selection couldn't possibly have resulted in the human body. The main relevance of that is that it is very much out of line with his public image as a rationalist. I think I'm going to add something about it.Hardwick 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Vonnegut was trying to be a skeptic at all here. He was making a joke. I saw that episode, and he was being ironic... any fans of Vonnegut ever notice he likes irony? The Daily Show is a *comedy* show. By just quoting this, and leaving out the comedic timing, the irony, or the fact that the whole audience laughed, you completely misrepresent the spirit of what Vonnegut was saying. This is in absolutely no way a sign of Vonnegut endorsing anything other evolution... it's a clear sign, however, of how far people will go to turn anything they can into something supposedly supporing intelligent design, religion or something of the sort. If anyone adds anything like this without noting that he was joking, I will revert it under BLP (even though he recently passed away) as fast as I am able. Edhubbard 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More on this... you can still watch the video yourself, although it's not wikipedia compatible because it's on a licensed Comedy Central website, but the link is here: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=18090.

You'll see that once Jon Stewart starts to laugh, even Vonnegut himself has trouble not laughing at his own joke... It's funny, it's ironic, not serious. Please don't dishonor Vonnegut's memory by trying to turn this into something it is most certainly not. Edhubbard 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In that video he certainly appears to accept evolution, although that's not actually the quote I was originally talking about. I haven't listened to the referenced NPR conversation, but perhaps I'll do that later to find the context. For the time being I agree that there's no justification for the mention. Thanks for pointing this out. Hardwick 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blech, NPR wants me to have Real Player or WMP installed and I'm running Debian. Would someone else like to listen to the interview? It should be here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165342 Hardwick 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Restting indent). I've listened to the piece, and provide my transcription below. Listening to the whole thing, there could be plenty of ammunition for both sides of the debate to take out of context and argue that Vonnegut shared their personal beliefs. Let’s hope that people honor Vonnegut’s memory enough not to do that.

For example, Vonnegut says “[Evolution] surely happened, as the fossil record shows that.” Indeed, he even goes so far as to argue that Pat Robertson does not doubt evolution(!). On the other hand, he says “scientists are pretending they have the answers as how we got this way, when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines” and goes on to say “It’s something perfectly wonderful is going on, I do not doubt it, but, I, the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.”

Now, this could simply be a matter of standard scientific skepticism. Being unsatisfied with the current explanations is the daily bread and butter of practicing scientists. It’s our dissatisfaction with current explanations that makes us get out of bed to design better, deeper, more probing experiments. To try and go beyond current explanations. Perhaps that’s all that Vonnegut is expressing here.

However, it could be that it’s much deeper than that. He could be expressing a profound doubt about evolution, or science in general. I don’t quite read it that way.

What I think he is arguing is a third point of view, viz that the debate over teaching evolution in the classroom has become something of a tribal battle. Note that by prefacing these remarks with discussion of his Anthropology degree, his specifically noting that he is putting his anthropologist hat on, which requires him to remain seperate from the topic at hand, and to talk about it has a cultural phenomenon, not a matter of his own beliefs. If I read him right here, he is arguing that the debate has become polarized on both sides, with the scientists refusing to admit the slightest doubt, for fear of “giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion.” and Pat Robertson arguing against evolution even though Vonnegut does not believe that he "doubts that we evolved."

His citing of Nietzsche at the end of the interview further suggests that he is simply arguing for an open expression of doubt across the board. He is perhaps suggesting that Christians should stop pretending to be so certain that evolution didn’t happen (Robertson) but also that scientists should be open to discussing the places where the data are incomplete or there is debate.

My personal feeling is that many scientists are reluctant to discuss gaps, because any time they do discuss some gap (real or imagined, see for example the flagella motor in the ID/Evolution debate) that is immediately taken by the creationist camp as evidence *for* ID/creationism. This “God of the gaps” strategy is certainly part of why scientists are averse to discussing gaps. It should go without saying that the “God of the gaps” strategy is a logical fallacy. An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. That is, just because we cannot currently explain something, this in no way proves that there is a designer/creator. This would imply that each time scientists fill one of the “gaps” then a designer/creator cannot be called upon there. I guess the ID strategy is hoping that there are enough gaps that they never have to say there can’t be a creator... the “Yes, but...” strategy.

Science works by admitting and acknowledging gaps in our knowledge, since those are the starting points for new investigations. They then do the experiments to fill them, rather than accepting this as evidence that they cannot be filled. I think that many scientists become less open to frank discussion for fear that what they say will be twisted, quoted out of context, or misrepresented, as the joke above was in danger of being twisted, to support things that are the opposite of the original intent. An admission of ignorance is not evidence for the opposite position. But, this is going pretty far off topic now. Back to the transcript. Edhubbard 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Morning Edition (The Long View) Kurt Vonnegut (KV) and Steve Inskeep (SI)

Vonnegut had been previously joking about his Master’s degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago, and how he hoped this wouldn’t intimidate the listeners or Steve Inskeep. He then turned to the need social interactions and extended families, and tribes coming from this anthropological perspective.

KV: “We can do without an extended family, as human beings, about as easily as we can do without vitamins or essential minerals. Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design.”

SI: “Are, are...”

KV: “What, what...

KV: “Look, the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.”

SI: “How are the scientists behaving tribally?”

KV: “They say, you know about evolution... It surely happened, as the fossil record shows that. But, I... look my body and your body are miracles of design and scientists are pretending they have the answers as how we got this way, when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.”

SI: “Does that mean that you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?”

KV: “Look, it’s, it’s what we’re thinking about all the time. If I were a physics teacher, or a science teacher, it would be on my mind all the time is how the hell we really got this way. It’s a perfectly natural human thought. And, ok, if you go into the science class you can’t think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion.”

KV: Also, I think that, you know, it’s tribal behavior. I, it’s, I don’t think that uh, Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.”

SI: “There are tribes on both sides here in your view.”

KV: “Yes.”

SI: “May I ask what tribes, if any, you have belonged to over the years?”

KV: “Well, it’s an ancestral tribe, um, these were immigrants from North of Germany, who came about the time of the Civil War <tape jump>.... but anyway, these people called themselves “Freethinkers”. They were impressed incidentally by Darwin. They’re called Humanists now, people who aren’t so sure that the Bible is the word of God.

SI: “Who are, who are, who are denounced by some people as being secular humanists.”

KV: “Oh, that’s exactly what I am. The problem with being a secular humanist is that we don’t have a congregation, we don’t meet. So it’s a very flimsy tribe. But... Ah, well, there’s a wonderful quotation from Nietzsche. Nietzsche said, 'Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism.' It’s something perfectly wonderful is going on, I do not doubt it, but, I, the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.”

Outro....

SI: That’s the long view from Kurt Vonnegut... His latest book is called “A Man Without a Country...”

To be honest, I don't really get why it matters. To be frank, Kurt Vonnegut's opinion of evolution is worth about as much weight as Richard Dawkins's opinion of literature. I.E. not much... Nil Einne 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I see his writings include science fiction and he evidentally has a master's degree in anthopology. Nil Einne 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Vonnegut's position matters one whit to the truth or falsity of evolution, and we wouldn't add it to the evolution page. However, it clearly mattered to Vonnegut, as a person, since he talked often about it, and it should therefore be noted on the page. My concern is that many poeple want to be able to claim great minds as being allied with their particular viewpoint (one or the other), as if it in some way justifies their point of view. This is especially the case with people's whose thinking was complex, nuanced, and sought a middle ground. I think Vonnegut might fall into that category. Einstein certainly does. I agree that, from a scientific perspective, Vonnegut's position on evolution does not one whit to change the science (nor does the Pope's for that matter) but in an article on Vonnegut it might be relevant. Edhubbard 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm not sure what to make of it - on that evidence I'd say a remark on his apparent incredulity of *unguided* evolution is warranted (I take it that we're not even debating whether he thought that evolution as a mechanism occurs). I'm not saying he was a creationist, but I am saying that the quotes currently in the article are likely to be of interest to readers. They certainly affected my view of the man to some extent. Oh, and thank you for the transcript, Edhubbard! (Assuming that was you) Hardwick 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotes taken in full context of the interview shows that the snipets presented misrepresent his beliefs in this instance by itself, and even more so in the evidence of his beliefs over the entire course of his life. You can't mention these quotes in this way, or at least without more of the interview and a more in depth telling for the beliefs he held the rest of his life that is in opposition to what is suggested here. It is innaccurate and comes across with such bias that its more likely to be taken as propaganda.

I have removed the quote in question again. Read the above transcript closely; Vonnegut, when asked, agrees that the evolution debate is divided up into rival tribes, then clearly and explictly places himself in one of them, declaring himself a secular humanist. More importantly, though, he was a novelist; particularly being the sort of novelist he was, the views that are important to him (worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article, that is) are going to appear in his novels. Unless someone can find a more substantitive quote on the matter, I don't think it's approprate to try and extrapolate his views on something like this from a single quote, especially given his sarcastic nature. --Aquillion 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It was always clear that Vonnegut considered himself to be a secular humanist, but are you really satisfied that he considered evolution to have been unguided and impersonal? Hardwick 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To do list

Okay. What needs to be done to get this page up to GA or FA status. Please put your thoughts in list form below. Remember 13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Clean up external links.
• Deal with trivia section
• ????

FIX THE TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION OF HIS BELIEFS ON RELIGION AND EVOLUTION. HE WAS THE FUCKING HEAD OF THE AMERICAN HUMANISTS ASSOCIATION!

Proposed wikiproject

I just proposed the following wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Recently Deceased Biographies to help those articles about recently deseased people attain the highest quality. Let me know if anyone is interested in this. Remember 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Date problem

In the World War II and Firebombing of Dresden section, it states during the Battle of the Bulge he was cut off from troops and captured on December 14, 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge did not begin until December 16th. Someone needs to correct this. 72.51.164.34 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Life and Death

Someone made the Personal Life and Death section extremely messy at the end with loose links and the like. Can someone fix that? -EarthRise33 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trout's Age At Death

In Timequake, Vonnegut mentions that Trout is 84 years old at death. Vonnegut himself was aged 84 when he met with his end. Is this worthy of mention on either the Kilgore Trout or Kurt Vonnegut pages? Jimmy 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, not all coincidences need to be mentioned. Mak (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder

For Kurt Vonnegut to be placed in the category of "People with bipolar disorder" or whatever it was, there has to be some kind of evidence or reference or mentioning in the article. 67.174.181.164 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One of Seven American Survivors?

In the entry, it says he was one of only seven or eight American survivors of the Dresden bombings, but I haven't found this in any sources. In Slaughterhouse-Five (which is I know is not non-fiction, but is still autobiographical), he says he and a hundred American soldiers survived the bombings. - Jeremy Peter Green 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In Fates Worse Than Death he mentions (several times) the EXACT people he was with in the slaughterhouse while Dresden was bombed. The total was 5-8, I forget the exact number (I can look it up later). The Rypcord. 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe American soldiers elsewhere in Dresden at the time of the bombings survived. Vonnegut reprinted material from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden in Slaughterhouse-Five, which implies that he researched the bombings for the book. Still, Slaughterhouse-Five is fiction. I think this detail needs more research, possibly from sources other than Vonnegut? -TeeRebel (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters named after real scientists

Vonnegut characters are in general named after real scientists who contributed to sciences like atmospheric science, rockets or space travel. See external link http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.kurt-vonnegut/browse_thread/thread/25bfa6bbace249e7/e1e07e1494ce93ad?lnk=st&q=the+vonnegut+file&rnum=1&hl=en#e1e07e1494ce93ad. Or just go to google groups and search for "The Vonnegut File"

I would like to frivolously add that one of the scientists is George Springer, used in the short story about a band leader. In real life, Springer was the author of a very good book on Riemann Integrals. Most card catalogs do not include this book, but instead they list George H Springer, author of a book on care and maintenance of band instruments.

If you are an NFL football fan, former Browns quarterback Frank Ryan wrote his PhD thesis on this subject - elliptical Riemann Integrals of the second and third kind. Frizb 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Trivia & References still need a cleanup. But it's a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Kundera

I mentioned this at Milan Kundera's page, but I do hope that there can be work done on the two articles to show some kind of comparison in themes and style. I won't be working on this for a few weeks, but perhaps someday I'll get back to it. Tdfriese 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

reason for change

If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WAS MUSIC

"Vonnegut's Blues For America" Sunday Herald (7 January 2006)

Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism

Using this source to conclude that Vonnegut sincerely believed in a God, and was therefore not an atheist is, I believe, based on an an overly literal and naive interpretation of the Blues for America essay, and illustrative of one of the pitfalls of interpreting primary sources without examining the context provided by other sources. Vonnegut's self-identification as an atheist, humanist and freethinker is substantiated by many quotes and secondary sources throughout his career, and this single figurative paragraph from an essay is hardly indicitive of some sort of dramatic turnaround and embracement of theism. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

From the context of this essay alone, it's clear that Vonnegut is not presenting a serious proof of the existence of God, but is making a comment about how much he appreciates music. The paragraphs immediately preceding and following the imaginary epitaph show that the greatness of music is his topic. The epitaph is a literary device used to express his point about music, not a sincere profession of belief in God. Later in this same essay Vonnegut says "And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic..." The flippant addition of the or whatever shows that Vonnegut speaks of "God" figuratively, but does not commit himself to genuine belief in God.

Vonnegut was a Unitarian (or more specifically, a Unitarian Universalist, or UU). [21] Anyone familiar with UUs will know that many of them are accustomed to using theistic language symbolically, without themselves being theists. In such cases, the word "God" is taken not to represent a supernatural being as it is in theistic worldviews, but some abstraction, such as supreme goodness, or harmony with nature or humanity, love, or any number of other ideals. As a member of several UU congregations, I have witnessed many members who identified themselves as atheists who nevertheless spoke of "growing into harmony with the Divine," or who wholeheartedly sang songs about God. Speaking of "God," yet being nontheistic in outlook, is a common phenomenon among UUs, and one must be very cautious about assuming what a UU believes based on the theistic language they might use.

Vonnegut has a long history of using theistic language, even as he identified himself as an atheist, humanist or freethinker. Take this excerpt from a commencement speech, for example: "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974." [22] Clearly, Vonnegut was prone to speaking of God as if he actually believed in him, even though he identified himself as an atheist.

The phrase "[i]f I should ever die, God forbid" in the Blues for America essay is a word-for-word recycling of a phrase he used in an address to members of the American Humanist Association for a memorial service for fellow humanist Isaac Asimov--an address of which he spoke in his latest book, A Man Without a Country:

“We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.” [23]

Why was this statement of Vonnegut's so funny to himself and his audience? It is because, as humanists, they do not believe in an afterlife, or in a God who sends people to heaven. When Vonnegut speaks of heaven or God, he does so with a wink. He speaks of God figuratively, ironically, or for humorous effect.

Here's another example, spoken by Vonnegut during an appearance on The Daily Show in support of his book A Man Without a Country (the same book from which the Blues for America essay was excerpted):

"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That's why we've got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap." [24]

That last example of divine engineering ("the clap") shows that Vonnegut's "endorsement" for intelligent design is only tongue-in-cheek. Vonnegut does not really believe there is some sort of intelligent, benevolent Creator guiding evolution, and his humorous mention of this noxious organism shows it.

Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics. [25] He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA. [26] If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. Nick Graves 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"overly literal and naive interpretation"

real civil. and people wonder why I don't like using discussion.Foxsux 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, hello Foxsux. Welcome to the talk page. Now, let's try to have a rational discussion here. You seem offended by the reply above. Perhaps it wasn't the best phrasing. It wasn't mine, but However, nothing you have said here responds to the substance of the reply above, but I apologize for any percieved nor any of the other citations. In dealing with Vonnegut, it has to be remembered that he was a humorist and a satirist, and that we must bear in mind the context in which his writings and statements have been made. It is for this reason that we look at all of the things that he said, and why the numerous citations and Vonnegut's actions, such as being President of the AHA, are important in evaluating his beliefs. Additionally, it should be noted that Vonnegut said lots and lots of things, and not everything that he said is notable, even if verifiable. Edhubbard 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick's "incivility" (really, was it that big of a deal?) is hardly reason to ignore the importance of the talk page, whether you like it or not. Discussion is absolutely essential to Wikipedia, and your continued reversions without discussion are counter-productive. If you are so intent on convincing us that Vonnegut was a deist, then please take Ed's advice and prove it using rational discussion. Nufy8 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would point this out: At the end of Palm Sunday Vonnegut himself states that he is an Agnostic believer of God. The Rypcord. 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The excerpt I read shows that he called himself a "Christ-worshipping agnostic," which is perfectly consistent with the comments I made above. He did not say that Christ was God, though he is clearly (as evidenced by this sermon and in many other writings/speeches) an ardent Christ admirer. Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, just as agnosticism and theism can overlap. By the way, I notice that the section of this article concerning Vonnegut's views on religion is very short, and actually much less informative than even this talk page. It ought to be expanded, and I intend to do my part soon. Nick Graves (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)