Talk:Darkness at Noon

Untitled
My understanding is that this book was written in German. Apparently the Modern Library 100 list editors didn't realize this and accidentally included Darkness at Noon among their list of English-language novels. Is this true? Can anyone verify this and add this info to the article? --Polynova 06:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is a little moot - Koestler moved to England and the novel became available in English in 1940 I recollect. (I have a very early Penguin copy somewhere and I'll check the flysheet.) Linuxlad 14:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's what he said about it (in the preface to my translation by Daphne Hardy): "...I was again arrested (by the French police) [March 1940] and the original German version of the book was lost. But by that time the English translation had been completed.  It was dispatched to London ten days before the German invasion of France started, and the book had another narrow escape..."  So evidently it was written in German, but that version doesn't survive.  Antandrus 19:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My recollection (to confirm) was that a key point in making Rubashov confess is the interrogator's convincing him that he _could_ have performed the suggested crimes - ie thought-crime! Same argument as used on Winston Smith in 1984 IIRC. Linuxlad 19:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this book is dumb that this book was written in German. Apparently the Modern Library 100 list editors didn't realize this and accidentally included Darkness at Noon among their list of English-language novels. Is this true? Can anyone verify this and add this info to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.234.167 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The plot summary needs some better analysis, and closer reading. It is wrong. --66.75.137.125 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the plot summary I wrote was deleted  (someone said that it wasn't a summary and wasn't encyclpedic). I'm okay with this but would love some clarification as to what exactly was wrong with the summary and if there is anything I can do to make it more serviceable. 65.78.16.117 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) tasha

Title
I added a comment on the title, (namely that 'Darkness at Noon' is what a prisoner would often see - ie the man has lost the light) which another user has deleted as erroneous (how?) and unhelpful. I agree it's trite, but it's no more wrong than the dialectical psycho-babble that precedes it (why these opposites? why does the title have immediate power in a way the french title does not?) I offer for reasonable debate!Linuxlad —Preceding undated comment added by Linuxlad (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 June 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I said it was erroneous is because it's incorrect to infer that prisons are often "dark at noon". I can't imagine why they would be. If the specific type of prison that Rubashov occupied was justifiably dark much of the day there wouldn't be a problem, but to just say "people who are imprisoned will often endure darkness at noon" is vague and overbroad. I appreciate your intention to interpret meaning in the title of the book, however I'm doubtful that that was the true intended meaning of the title. I think what is really needed to solve the issue would be to find some reliable references. I'm sure there are books out there on Koestler that would give better insight into this. As for the "psycho-babble", though I'm in no position to justify the other parts of the article, I think pointing out the paradox of darkness and daytime seems at least somewhat reasonable. - PullUpYourSocks 1 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

there is a german article about the book called "sonnenfinsternis". i just wanted to say, myve someone can install a link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.113.25 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey fellas to settle your debate over the meaning behind the title, the answer is pretty simple, a credo of the Russian Revolution was that of the Burning Sun at Noon. Meaning a new Russia would be reborn by the mid-day sun, however as is discovered in the novel there is no rebirth only a replaying of old Russia, hence the "darkness" at noon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not Propaganda. Simply the truth. --80.98.80.131 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the title
A likely source of the title was one of Milton's poems on his blindness. It begins:

Total Eclipse! No Sun! No Moon! All dark amidst the blaze of noon.

(Note that the German title could have come from the opening line). Milton had worked for Oliver Cromwell and was accused of treason when Charles II took over; Koestler may have considered this a parallel to Rubashev's situation. Also, metaphorically, Rubashev had been blind to the implications of what he was doing. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think these lines were by Milton himself. They are from the libretto for Handel's Samson, adapted from Milton's original "Oh dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon" (Samson Agonists l.80). (An aria which drew tears from the audience once, when the blind Handel sat on the stage during a performance, or so I have read.) Seadowns (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of plot summary
In my Penguin edition, there is a character called Little Loewy, who is a German working in Belgium. Is there another edition in which he is a Dutchman called Little Loewie? The Lawless One (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Lasalle
I've always been rather taken by the 4-line quote (is it a quatrain?) from Ferdinand Lasalle which heads up the final section ('The Grammatical Fiction') of the book:- 'Show us not the aim without the way, For ends and means on earth are so entangled That changing one, you change the oher too; Each different path brings other ends in view.

It's from Lasalle's work on Franz von Sickingen, which got a lot of stick from Marx and Engels for barking up the wrong tree.

Eduard Bernstein in his book on Lassale also picks out this passage for special comment (in this version:-

Show not the end and aim, but show the way, For here so intermingle way and end That one still changes with the other’s change, And other ways lead still to other ends,

All this would have been meat and drink to a well-read left-leaning man like Koestler, and appears here to perhaps to be used as a sad summary on the failure of the (this bit of) socialist project... Linuxlad (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Orwell
Deleted the reference to Rubashov participating in the 1917 revolution, as Koestler does not say this in the work. Also replaced Orwell's comment about the derivation of Rubashov's character with Koestler's, which appears in the preface to the novel. Carinae986 (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Dahn (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Koestler's opinion is more relevant than Orwell's. Carinae986 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why they're both in there. See below. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clutter. A good article should get across the maximum information in the minimum ammount of time. Saying something twice when once will do is simply wasting the reader's time. Carinae986 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. A good article, as countless wikipedia guidelines will tell you, reflects all notable arguments made, and doesn't discard stuff for the sake of convenience (whose convenience?). Dahn (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the reader's convenience. Koestler's opinion is both more authoratative than Orwell's, and covers the same territory. Since they're making the same argument, the sentences are redundant. Hence the deletion of Orwell's comment in favor of the more relavant source. Carinae986 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please point me to a guideline that backs your "keep it short" theory; 2) Orwell is the one to cover more territory, since he points out the names of, shall we say, "possible Rybashovs". More detail is good for the brain. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keeping it short is just good writing, as Orwell himself said. ;) (Politics and the English Language, reproduced in the collected essays, journalism, and letters of george orwell, vol iv, pp. 139 - also available on teh googles ) Carinae986 (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this as an Orwell fan, so please don't step out of that paradigm. Unfortunately or not, Orwell is not the basis for the wikipedia manual of style. Neither are you, with all due respect. Dahn (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't take it disrespectfully... I hope you don't either when I ask, in all seriousness, why you would think that long-winded writing is better than concise writing...? If Koestler has already said something, what's the purpose of having Orwell repeat it?Carinae986 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the section that says Orwell was influenced by Darkness At Noon. Orwell and Koestler did write on similar themes, but this is not necessarily because one had a direct influence on the other. Totalitarianism was the overwhelming political fact in Europe during the 1940s, so it is not exactly surprising that the two men, who were both writers interested in politics, chose to write on similar themes, or to level similar criticisms. The essay cited in support of the idea of influence is suggestive, but nowhere in it does Orwell say that he intended to expand on Koestler's thinking in a future novel. The evidence for this claim is, in other words, circumstantial. Quite possibly this issue was addressed by one of Orwell's biographers. Carinae986 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, but, when third-parties speculate about that, we cite them. It doesn't matter if they're right, it matters if they're relevant. I also don't think that to be influenced by something means you would want to continue it - just that it inspired you. Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you're wrong, nor did I add (all) those quotes myself; I'm saying that there's enough space in this article to summarize all relevant commentary. Even if the article as is is in quite a poor state. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say what the original contributor thinks it says. That's why I removed it. I admit it's suggestive, but it's only that. Citing it as evidence is, in other words, original research. I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, because like you said there's plenty of room in the article. I just want to point out that there's a real problem with that attribution. I'd encourage you to read Orwell's 1944 article if you haven't already. I think, if you do, you'll see where I'm coming from. Carinae986 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is it implied that it is evidence. But, anyway, here is the full context: "One cannot, I think, argue that Darkness at Noon is simply a story dealing with the adventures of an imaginary individual. Clearly it is a political book, founded on history and offering an interpretation of disputed events. Rubashov might be called Trotsky, Bukharin Rakovsky or some other relatively civilised figure among the Old Bolsheviks." It is quite clear that Orwell sees the book as a reflection of historical facts, and what's more so does AK (just not in as many words). Also, I think the Orwell article, in conjunction with (many) other sources, should be use to source the rest of the the wikipedia entry. Dahn (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The original entry says that Koestler's work was "very influential" for Orwell, and cites the article in proof of that. The article doesn't actually say that. Hence the deletion. Orwell does not see the book as a reflection of historical facts. He says elsewhere in the article that he disagrees with Koestler's explanation for the confessions of the Old Bolsheviks. This, according to Orwell, is attributable to three explanations: the accused were guilty, they were tortured, they were actuated by despair. "If one assumes that the accused were not guilty ... then 2 is the common-sense explanation. Koestler, however, plumps for three." (collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell, volume 3, pp. 239). Orwell, in other words, rejects Koestler's explanation. The fact is that only a few people in 1944 knew what had happened in the 1938 trials. Koestler and Orwell would certainly not be included in that group. They were both in Spain in 1938, and by 1942 in Great Britain - not in Russia, and certainly not in the small cricles within the Russian political establishment who were privy to the facts. While Orwell does say that Rubashov might be a stand in for any of the Old Bolsheviks, Koestler says that himself, so Orwell's opinion is just beside the point. Look - we could fill up ten pages with attributions about where the character of Rubashov comes from. What really matters is what the author, and the relevant literary scholars, have to say about it. Orwell was neither. His opinions are just not relevant. Carinae986 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot access the 1949 article, I assume good faith. You might want to take that up with the one who added it, or rephrase it to closer reflect the source.
 * GO may reject AK's explanation, but that is not the point: they refer to the same historical facts, i. e. the Moscow trial confessions. Their interpretation differs, but they still refer, each with his own disbelief, to the same succession of events. Specific cases cited by GO help clarify the context further, and give the reader some possible specific interpretations (which, for the fourth time, AK does not exclude! those people cited by GO were for most victims of those trials). And there is absolutely no reason why GO's opinion would be irrelevant, except that you believe it is. In general, articles about books welcome the sourcing from both scholars and contemporary reviewers. I'm not giving you my personal interpretations as to "who Rybashov is" (having read the book, I think he may be a composite, but all in all it's not important to me); what I care about is preserving a relevant opinion that was expressed, and which we should not remove on a whim. That's all. Dahn (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * well, I'd like to see you defend that statement, that Orwell's opinion is relevant. It seems to me that Orwell's opinion was no more or less relevant than that of anyone else who had read the book. He was not a scholar, or a biographer, or the author himself. He simply wrote a book review in 1944. The most you can say about their relationship is that Orwell read Koestler's book, and that they had some kind of acquaintance in the mid 40s. It seems to me that Orwell's opinion is more properly located on a page dealing with Orwell, than on one dealing with Koestler. This is a link to the full article: http://www.george-orwell.org/Arthur_Koestler/0.html Carinae986 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If we cannot even cite a review of the work in an article about the work, I don't know what we can cite anymore! Orwell's is a relevant opinion from the field of literature, and with a background similar to AK's. In any case, you're repeating yourself, and it's starting to look like a No true Scotsman. And yes, I have read the article. Dahn (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Who you can cite is clearly defined under the NPOV guidelines: "the best and most reputable sources available." As I understand that phrase, it would mean Koestler, a Koestler biographer, or a literary scholar. Orwell was just a guy who read the book, and as such his opinions aren't any more relevant than yours, mine, or anyone else's. I admit his opinions are interesting - but he is not an authority on the subject in question. In any case, there is no direct evidence in the article for Koestler's influence on Orwell. As such the claim is original research, and ought to be deleted. What you're objecting to, basically, is that I'm applying a more rigorous standard to the evidence than you are. Well yes, I am. Do you think that hurts, or helps, the integrity of the page? Carinae986 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are citing NPOV out of context: the quote can be found in a guideline advising those who may not recognize quality sources how to get a general idea. The very policy begins with the words: "NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." GO is a reliable source as far as WP:RS goes. The guideline advises us to represent as many such views as possible. The only point you'd be making is that it's disproportionate, perhaps (even though you're you to cite a POV other than your own that would say GO is wrong about anything). What I invite you to do next is to add other secondary sources to the article, not to erase the existing secondary ones and write your own essay from what the primary source tells you. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the attribution was established by the Mizener article, which, unlike Orwell's review, is a relavant source, I don't have anything else to say on this point. Carinae986 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dahn - yes the quote from Orwell is sourced. But Koestler himself spoke on this subject, so it seems to me that Orwell's opinion is beside the point. Carinae986 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, they do not contradict each other in the least, Orwell, however, is being more specific. To deprive the reader of relevant critical commentary on a whim is just not doable. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't that they contradict each other; it's that Orwell's opinion is not relevant. The article he wrote was a book review for a newspaper. He was not the author, he was not a Koestler scholar, he was just a guy with an opinion. Look - I'm the only editor whose bothered to cite Darkness At Noon, the book itself, even once. Doesn't it seem odd to you that Orwell's review is cited twice and Koestler's only once? Orwell is being given undue weight on this page. Koestler's opinion is what really matters. Carinae986 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Carinae986 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, per our WP:PSTS policy, it's not a good thing to rely on primary sources. The way to balance out Orwell's opinion (which is relevant) is to add more from other secondary sources which say something or other on the subject, not to cut out Orwell. But again, if he's not even contradicting AK, what exactly is the issue of undue weight? Does he say something fringe or scandalous? No: he says roughly the same thing, but explains to our readers just what specific cases the book may address, or at least what real-life Rybashovs look like. It is insightful, and comes from a competent source. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What the NPOV policy says is that attributions should be from "the best and most reputable sources available." Orwell does not fit that criteria. The best and most reputable source available would be a scholar, like Uwe Klawitter, Jenni Calder, or Herman Geering. Including his opinion just because he wrote a book review in 1944 is just cluttering up the article. Carinae986 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, they don't even have a different POV on the matter, Orwell and GO, so I was discussing your POV that x source is not good. I still don't see a credible answer to that: was GO not a respected columnist on literary and political matters? was the newspaper for which he wrote his review not respectable? are his opinions fringe? I think you know that the answer to all three questions is 'no'. Dahn (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * my objection is that you're setting the bar for relevance too low. I agree with you that Orwell was a respectable guy with a respectable opinion, writing for a respectable publication. Those are not the criteria for relevance as they appear in the NPOV guidelines. The criteria is that cited sources represent "the best and most reputable sources available." Orwell does not fit that criteria. He was just a guy with an opinion - not a scholar, not the author, not a biographer. If you want to see that Orwell's opinions are included in the piece, why not start a new section dealing with literary criticism of Darkness At Noon? Orwell's essay is certainly relevant to that discussion. Carinae986 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You have cherry-picked and misapplied the NPOV issue. Have a look over WP:RS, and tell me what isn't reliable about GO's essay. The rest is interpretation. Dahn (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What isn't reliable is that Orwell is not an authority on the subject. He's just a guy with an opinion. His comments belong either on his page, or in a discussion of the secondary source material surrounding Darkness At Noon. Carinae986 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You assert that, but what is the subject and who is an authority on it? (Rhetorical question.) My knowledge of GO's biography tells me that he was just as intellectually competent as most literary critics of his day, and his pedigree as a political analyst puts him there with, say, Leszek Kołakowski. A Koestler scholar he may not be, but any article that only relies on that tight expertise would be inane. The rules you make up as you go, seemingly against editorial consensus and the letter of the policies and guidelines, do not address that simple issue. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * who says it would be inane? That's how scholarly work is done. This is exactly the kind of thing that hurts Wikipedia's integrity. "Hey this looks pretty good, let's throw it in." This isn't a 4th grade essay project. You've got to stick to the authorities. Orwell isn't one of them - so he's out. I don't have any more time for this subject today, and I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. But if I rewrite the article - and I may - the Orwell commentary will be out, or else it will be in a discussion of the secondary source material where it belongs. Carinae986 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I say he is an authority, and I think we can find enough sources to attest that. I don't believe I'll find any source saying "Orwell was just a guy writing articles". And secondary sources, again are the basis of an article. On wikipedia, you write the article from them, not around them. Dahn (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By all means, locate some sources to attest to that. I'd be curious to see them. If you go through the trouble, what you'll find is that Orwell was a journalist and occasional essayist in 1944. i.e. some guy writing articles. Your say-so doesn't make him an authority. Authorship, or the consensus of the experts in a relavant field, does. What you're complaining about is that I'm trying to hold the article to a higher standard than you are. Sorry about that. Carinae986 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got to repeat that Orwell doesn't say anywhere in the 1944 essay that he intended to use Koestler's ideas for a future novel. The link does not say what the original contributor thinks it says; it's original research and ought to be deleted. If they wrote on similar topics, it's just as likely that they did it because they were contemporaries with similar interests. Carinae986 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference for the inspiration is Arthur Mizener! Orwell himself is used for the "Rakovsky, Bukharin etc." quote - and there's a redundant second link to his essay, for the additional fact that he wrote about Koestler. Dahn (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. My mistake. Carinae986 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Orwell Again
Ok. Hopefully these latest edits will be a compromise that we can agree on. Orwell's comments have been retained, but they've been relocated to a discussion on Orwell's reaction to Darkness At Noon. The derivation of Rubashov's character has been sourced from Koestler and from Jenni Calder (a literary scholar who wrote on this topic) instead of from Orwell. Carinae986 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Several of the edits are tagged: "References removed." Actually they've all been retained, but it took me a few edits to locate them correctly in the article. Carinae986 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Dahn (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources should be other than Koestler commenting on his own work; it is useful for readers to learn what others have written about his work. Authors are not the only source of meaning and interpretation and RS are needed for the plot summary (which is too long) and interpretation. Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Ok, I reset the page because I wanted to talk about any extensive revisions before the article is actually changed. Right now I'm the only person who seems to have a commitment to building this page, although if you'd like to work together that would be great. I'm sure we could make a better article together than with just me working on my own.

The third and fourth sections aren't covered in the article because I haven't gotten to them yet. The page was basically just a stub when I first looked at it so I decided to undertake a major revision, one paragraph at a time, as I find the time to work on it. So yes it's incomplete. As far as the blue links, I think that blue linking Rip Van Winkle suggests to the readers that there is a connection between the Washington Irving character and the Koestler character, which is not the case. I added an edit to make the actual connection more clear, since it wasn't really explained in my original edit. Pieta was blue linked earlier in the article, so I don't think it should be blue linked again later on. I saw that dozens of edits had been made to the style of the article that you found. I think the style in the Characters and Plot section was fine, although I'm willing to discuss it. I don't have any investment in the style of the article outside of those sections, so I went back and reinserted your changes to those sections. Carinae986 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Use RS
Articles, including about books, are supposed to be based on RS - what others have said about the topic, not editors' interpretations and selections.Parkwells (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Structure: Characters
Generally in an article about a book or film, the characters are named and briefly identified. This article goes into great detail about each character, in the process getting deeply into the plot. Then the plot is repeated in the next sections. I am going to reduce the content related to the characters in the section by that name.Parkwells (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Influence
This section seems more like trivia, to recount isolated instances of people reading or referring to this novel. It was much more influential than that, as can likely be found in reviews of the times or literary/political histories following that period. Other RS should be used.Parkwells (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darkness at Noon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011339/http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2003-08-25&art=575 to http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2003-08-25&art=575

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a "dystopian novel"
There is no reason to consider Darkness At Noon a dystopian novel. It is a work of fiction that imagines a historic situation (nearly contemporaneous with its composition) closely analogous to reality. It is a dark view of an actual historical period, the Great Purge during the late 1930's in the Soviet Union. It is a work of realism. Are all fictional treatments of this period to be considered dystopian literature, because the society itself was so terrible for so many? Is Victor Serge's The Case of Comrade Tulayev, a more Tolstoyan view of the same events, a dystopian novel? Moving right along, how about Norman Mailer's first novel, The Naked and the Dead? That also is a fictional treatment of a pretty bad situation in the US Army.

I think it's pretty clear that none of these have a prime characteristic of dystopian fiction, that the society itself is imaginary. A fictional situation in a real society is not enough to put a story into the dystopian category. Let us not risk hyperbole. I have removed "dystopian" from the list of categories. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dystopian fiction is about fictional worlds subject to such factors as oppressive governments, mass starvation, other environmental distress or similar all-encompassing conditions. 174.56.173.38 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)kolef174.56.173.38 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention of IRD activity and the department's role in distribution, republishing, and translating.
Several days ago I beefed up the summary by putting it into it's proper Cold War context and included info on the Information Research Department (IRD) and its role in distribution, republishing, and translating. The author was also extremely close to the IRD, to the point where he was actively influencing the IRD's decisions with his advice, which led to the creation of Background Books. However, another user called is removing my editions without any explanation. I reversed his removal of my edits and invited him to the talk page, but he deleted all my edits again without any explanation.

Micketymoc, please discuss these changes by responding to this section.BulgeUwU (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Micketymoc please respond to my inquiry, why did you remove (without any explanation) my edits in the summary of Darkness at Noon?BulgeUwU (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, which (if any) of your sources labels Koestler a "British propagandist"? I'm sure you can understand that dropping into an article about a major work of twentieth-century literature and labeling the author a "British propagandist," in the lede no less, requires some pretty serious sources. Can you provide an excerpt to that effect from any reliable source?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The central role of British agents in promoting, distributing, republishing, and translating Darkness at Noon is undeniable and universally accepted historians of the Cold War. Alongside Orwell's Animal Farm, Darkness at Noon has been described by historians as an example of a work which, in the words of Cold War historian Tony Shaw, has been "plundered by official Cold War propagandists," and one of many examples of "literature which also acquired privileged status in the West with at least some help from Western governments." As for the importance of Darkness at Noon to British pro-colonial propaganda, in the opinion of historians Jonathan Blotch, Patrick Fitzgerald and Philip Agee, the British secret service used Koestler's works to sabotage pro-independence movements (in this case Malaya)
 * It's fair if you don't believe the information is in the right place, but I don't believe it was right to remove it from the wiki entirely and Micketymoc should at least respond to people who ask why their edits are removed. Perhaps we can instead create a sub-heading for the book's relationships with British propagand agencies. BulgeUwU (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Philip Agee was a former American CIA officer that later changed allegiance and collaborated with the Soviet KGB, not an "historian" or literary critic. For the record—you labelled Koestler a "British propagandist" even though none of your sources described him as such?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So where are your source(s) that Koestler was a "British propagandist"? And why should that claim need to go in the lead section here, rather than (somewhere) in the main article for Koestler? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * I think UwU's edit must be restored with the propagandist part removed. It should cite the fact that the book's popularity was affected by the fact that a british propaganda agency ( the IRD) helped get it famous. Also, it is best to create a sub section, instead of putting this content in the lead. Seekallknowledge (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been nearly a 4 weeks since my edits were removed with zero explanation, and it looks like all mention of the Information Research Department has been scrubbed from the wiki page. Perhaps some editors are attempting to censor all discussion and mention of the British secret service's involvement in republishing, promoting and distributing Darkness at Noon. BulgeUwU (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)