Talk:The War of the Worlds

Radio broadcast?

There appears to be no mention at all of the The War of the Worlds (radio) broadcast after the massive changes of the last few days...? Jpatokal (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It was moved to Adaptations of The War of the Worlds by maclean after I posted a request for advice on how to handle the structure of the article on WT:BOOKS. I had originally suggested a brief summary section on adaptions with main article link to replace this (the radio broadcast being one I thought should be mentioned because of its infamy), but forgot to actually do this. I am working on something else at the moment Barsoom, but of course can add this summary section if other editors do not do so in the near future. Mesmacat (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be included in the main article, it may very well have been an adaptation, but that episode is still an integral part of the history of HG Wells War of the Worlds. Orson Welles didnt write anything to scare the crap out of americans, all he did was retell the story as current event using local places and people, he didnt change anything else. Also as i mentioned below, its not that it isnt mentioned as part of the article, its just not mentioned full stop, i dont see anything about "For the radio broadcast please see "Adaptations Of" Its just not there which is a shame. 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The famously controversial radio broadcast is one of the most salient events concerning the story. To not even mention it is a bizarrely inappropriate omission.

War of the Worlds as other literature

Why is there no mention what so ever in here about the fact that Orson Welles actually generated a great panic in the United States early in the 20th century by retelling this exact story as news fact over the radio as a Halloween prank? I was actually trying to find some dates on it and my first thought would be this article, but no mention of it at all? 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind ive just seen the answer to it in a reply to the above post. The answer however is slightly silly, more than any other, that re-telling of the story has kept this great piece of literature famous, no one is going to go looking for "Adaptaions of (insert subject here)" to look for something directly related, especially as once again, there is no mention of the information being on another semi-related page at all! It basically says that that important event has nothing to do with this story! 122.108.77.8 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have minded my grammar...

I was the anonymous editor who corrected the possessive forms of Wells's name. I neglected to sign in before beginning my edits. Rest assured they weren't drive-bys. In my education(up to Bachelor of Science) and in several grammatical texts I have in my possession, the possessive form of a proper noun ending in -S is to add "'s". "Saint James's Hospital" for example. Excepting certain entities which choose to have their names in the form of simply adding the apostrophe. To do so implies plurality, which there is obviously not in Wells's case.

"Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.

Here are some examples:

   * James's cat
   * Mrs. Jones's attorney
   * Dr. Seuss's book

"

My edits were grammatically accurate. I am not reverting them simply because I would like discussion rather than an edit war over something so trivial.

Sparf (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respond to this, so forgive me for undoing your removal. Your texts say these things, I have no doubt. But, we should follow WP:MOS in this, which quite easily/quickly says that either style is appropriate. I added a link in the edit summary. Further, when something is written in one style on Wikipedia (consistently in any one article), it generally remains in that style. Thanks for checking back. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Izno, you reverted one thing he did that you shouldn't have, at least not a straight "undo" of it. He turned a "Well's" into a "Wells's" and you made it "Well's" again. I dare say all three of us agree that that is wrong. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Trudat. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had never been taught any other way in my many many years of education, nor in any of my texts on the subject. I guess I need to get some more texts, eh? Anyway, trying to be more productive to the Wikipedia community, so it's best that I learn these things now. And no worries about undoing my removal. I always favor fruitful discussion.Sparf (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MOS, in the Grammar (National varieties of English Styles) section, suggests that: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example: Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' (British English)". For more detail on the possessive case, the MOS points to the "Apostrophe" page, where the named authorities seem to lean towards a preference for 's, though the apostrophe alone is considered an alternative. Authorities in British English specifically are overwhelmingly in favour of 's. I agree that one has, ultimately, to follow house rules, but if "Lord of the Rings" is considered to be an exception, should not "The War of the Worlds" also be so? It is, after all, the work of a British Writer, set in the United Kingdom and generally regarded as a commentary on the British Empire.Mabzilla (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The MoS also says that if the article is stable in one version, it should remain in that version unless we take a strong national influence. I don't really feel comfortable debating that... I had a peek into the article history, and it seems that it has always been of mixed variation until the second half of 2008, when it was largely standardized to Wells', which suggests by WP:RETAIN that we should keep it there. I would personally like to see what User:Mesmacat has to say, as he was the main contributor to the current version. --Izno (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sry, been away from the wiki for a long time. I had a look at the punctuation style used by a number of well-respected scholars who have written on Wells, including Patrick Parrinder, who is a foremost expert in this field and 'Wells's' seems to be the standard usage. My inclination would be to follow their example. Mesmacat (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wells' views and characterization of religion are interesting. He clearly has no time for the rigidly fundamentalist view of things, personified in the Curate, who snapped under the pressure. But it is interesting that in some places, he makes a point of an encounter with 'God' in the quiet, dark silence (after the Curate's death), when he examines his own conscience. He also mentions praying with thanks to God after he realizes the martians have been destroyed. He also refers to bacteria being placed by God on the earth, 'in his wisdom'. But are these references to some kind of faith, or was Wells attempting to make the book more acceptable to the people of the day? I find it interesting that as wells mentions God placing bacteria on earth, he immediately discusses the evolutionary process which led to human resistence to germs. He also makes a point of the value of compassion. My own view is that Wells has room for a God who challenges people into new kinds of thinking. He has no time for a God of the rigid, narrow, fundamentalist type. Whether or not Wells had any kind of belief in a God is another question - CL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.59.60 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cause of World War One

I know this may seem like a minor point, and not relevant to the article as a whole, but it's a bit of an assumption to say that European Empire building was the cause of the First World War, in Colonialism and imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.90.103 (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Radio broadcast?

I'm sorry, but the radio broadcast has to be mentioned in this article, otherwise it looks stupid and incomplete. The Orson Welles broadcast is undeniably what most people associate with the novel, and while I'm not saying an entire section need be devoted to it, at the very least add a line referencing it, with a throw to the applicable section of the Adaptations article which most visitors won't think to look for under the links section at the very bottom of this thing. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Given its age most people will know of the Spielburg film rather then a 80 year old radio broadcast.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Why was it not mentioned that it scared hundreds/thousands of people in the 20th century over a radio broadcast?

Motivation for writing?

Can't recall where I read this, but supposedly Wells was fascinated by the Great Opposition of Mars that occurred on or about 1895. One story even has him travelling South, out of England, to observe it (Great Oppositions always occur with Mars being in a constellation South of the Celestial Equator), and then writing the story on his return to England. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)