Talk:H. G. Wells/Archive 3

Wells was first?
I'm a B.A in English and have read some of Wells' work. While I found the article highly informative, I query the assertion that Wells wrote the first dystopia novel. What of Swift's "Gulliver's Travels. Surely, it's not being suggested that any of the encoutered races -with the possible exception of the gee-gees - have a remotely desirable society. It was written as a satire, after all. Tamrhind (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
"The Spinster and the Prophet: H.G. Wells, Florence Deeks, and the Case of the Plagiarized Text" - has anyone considered the modern case against H.G. Wells? It's mentioned in the "The Outline of History" wiki. Shouldn't it be mentioned here? Faro0485 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, in this article
Changes at this edit are direct plagiarism of. It appears several other places too, I'm not sure of the source. --Traviscj (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing novel!
For some reason, one of Wells's most important ( imho) novels is missing from the list of works. This i the book "Mr Britling sees it through" which deals in detail with the first world war. But I don' know how to add it... help! 90.11.97.35 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of Wells's works are omitted here, but it's in the bibliography. If you're sure it should be in, edit the template by clicking on the "e" of "v.d.e" top left. The works are in date order. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Age at which Wells became a pupil at Midhurst school
The 1881 British Census lists a 14 year old Herbert G Wells living as a boarder and scholar in Midhurst (Sussex) with the family of Horace Byatt "headmaster of grammar school", suggesting that he was already a pupil at Midhurst school in 1881, two years earlier than stated.--Bromleylad (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wells, according to his "Experiment in Autobiography", was a pupil at Midhurst for a couple of months early in 1881, learning Latin and boarding with the headmaster. He returned as a pupil teacher in 1883 after his spell at the Draper's in Southsea. A lot happened to Wells in the early eighteen eighties, and I think the main article picks out the salient facts reasonably well.--Mabzilla (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybury Hill image
Apparently Wells lived at "Heather Brae", Maybury Hill. The new image is too small to read the house name, although there is some sort of plaque. The modern directory shows that about thirteen of the houses in Maybury Hill are numbered, with the rest having names: there is now no "Heather Brae". Is there any verification available that this house is the one?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the caption: it was Maybury Road.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Engagement and disengagement for Science and Technology
I've reverted this addition by Kalki101, as it seemed to give rather undue prominance to the issue. Mind at the End of Its Tether is already mentioned at the end of the preceding Politics section, and perhaps that can be expanded upon. Of course, attention has previously been drawn to the dialogue of one of Wells's characters in The World Set Free, which warns against allowing a man's dying pressimission to overshadow what they may have said before:
 * "I do not see why life should be judged by its last trailing thread of vitality. I know it for the splendid thing it is... I know it well enough not to confuse it with the husks. Remember that... if presently my heart fails and I despair, and if I go through a little phase of pain and ingratitude and dark forgetfulness before the end. Don’t believe what I may say at the last."

Nick Cooper (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I give you my opinion - this need a separate section, because our civilisation / culture / society is a technological society, you can read ellul, human are technologic addicts - they cannot say no to any new technologies - in this point of view - people will never understand what is the point of Wells view on technology if it is not clearly identified. I mean in other word, a lot of science fiction wrighters are critising the technology in their books, or movies - but as for Wells, this is not the message that will be understound clearfully.

I agree this is "Politic", but this must be "more" than 'current' politic to be understood.

What is more important - the truth or a common lie ? A lie about the technology in this case.Wells is just one of the two first science fiction wrighters after all. Just before you know, the '1900 Paris Universal Expo' with the Eiffel tower and all these good things , the good industrials, and the gentle mondialism, and economic totalitarisme without frontier , and Two world war with machines and million of bodies to feed it.

Maybe we must take a lot more attention at our technological problem, because this is maybe THE PROBLEM.

Nietzsche said : " The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception. ". If Wikipedia could go a lot further than neutrality, if wikipidea could get rid of all ideology, and the first ideology is conformism : then this will be a best step.

Well, maybe it just need a section under politic. --Kalki101 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Joan and Peter
I'm shortsighted but I did not see anything on the main Wikipedia page about this very large tract, "Joan and Peter",  written by Mr Wells.

I thought it worth reading when I first borrowed it from a Shropshire library about 42 years ago. I bought a copy for 72p (less than an English pound) 3 weeks ago tho' postage was a lot more and I'm still magnetised (at only Page 33 this time around in the Odhams edition).

Why are Kipps and Polly famous, and this book (which from its length alone,  was not written lightly)... why are Kipps and Polly famous, and this rightly sarky book ignored?

The Story of an Education. Before the Education Act which served me and my contemporaries so well and before the re-imposition of so many new tuition fees and debt-incurring-ingenuities and... Need I continue? Debt-incurring-ingenuity. Mr Wells might have liked that phrase. Meanwhile, any chance of including "Joan and Peter" in your eulogy albeit critical of that very readable curious man?

Life's a funny business. Herbert knew that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.65.106 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wells a Pantheist
This keeps turning up in the article, either in the categories or in "Private Life", supposedly from Wells's essays on a "world encyclopedia", but uncited. It is contradicted by the cited information in the "Religion" section. Can it be sourced anywhere? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A poster has yet again inserted this, now in the "Religion" section, asserting that it is from God the invisible King. He/she includes a useful quote that describes some of Wells's religious views, but doesn't it cover "pantheist" (a term which which Wells applies only to the beliefs of Spinoza, not his own) or "world brain", so I've added  tags. The full text of the work is available online here so if anybody has the time to check if I've missed something (I just used a quick word search for the terms) that would be great.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The uncited information removed again. Please don't put it back unless it can be supported by a WP:RS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Google
Google doodle for the day, lots of traffic. propose temp lock 74.180.79.68 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. There's already been some vandalism spam, so it'd probably be good to head it off at the pass. 70.145.203.174 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IP Lock requested. Eedlee (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic reason. The fact that there is even more traffic than usual means that more potential wiki users can visit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What a bad impression this makes. It seems like this website is no different than any other website. It cannot be edited by anybody. What a con. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.91.1120 (talk • contribs) 26, 21 September 2009
 * Yes it's all so very difficult. We put in an IP lock which means you have to log in. Sorry you couldn't see fit to set up an account. It's also nice if you sign your posts with four tildas Eedlee (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics
This article underplays Wells' insane and evil ideas on eugenics which make Hitler look like a liberal. Try these:

"And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear. The world has a greater purpose than happiness; our lives are to serve God's purpose, and that purpose aims not at man as an end, but works through him to greater issues."

Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (1901), The Faith, Morals, and Public Policy of The New Republic, p. 340 - 343

"The true objection to slavery is not that it is unjust to the inferior but that it corrupts the superior. There is only one sane and logical thing to be done with a really inferior race, and that is to exterminate it. Now there are various ways of exterminating a race, and most of them are cruel. You may end it with fire and sword after the old Hebrew fashion; you may enslave it and work it to death, as the Spaniards did the Caribs; you may set it boundaries and then poison it slowly with deleterious commodities, as the Americans do with most of their Indians; you may incite it to wear clothing to which it is not accustomed and to live under new and strange conditions that will expose it to infectious diseases to which you yourselves are immune, as the missionaries do the Polynesians; you may resort to honest simple murder, as we English did with the Tasmanians; or you can maintain such conditions as conduce to “race suicide,” as the British administration does in Fiji."

A Modern Utopia (1905), Ch. 10, sect. 3

Should not some major element of these texts find their way into the article?

--John Price (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are not acceptable here, especially not as evidence of notability. If you can show us some reputable secondary sources that these writings were in fact representative of Wells' views, and that this is a significant aspect of him, then a mention might be made. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that what a writer states to be his belief is pretty good evidence of what his belief actually is. Given the length of these quotes, the clarity with which the opinions are expressed and their extraordinary nature it seems likely (to me anyway) that he really does mean what he says and such ideas are an important part of his mindset. However, to keep everyone happy, I am getting hold of a copy of this book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectuals-Masses-Prejudice-Intelligentsia-1800-1939/dp/0571169260 - which includes a chapter on Wells and his dangerous ideas so this should serve.  --John Price (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * John Price, the problem with Anticipations - apart from it being written in a hurry at a time when Wells thought he only had a few months to live (not condusive with an optimistic frame of mind!) - is that it is a book he subsequently repudiated, and is now almost impossible to find. Even so, another passage in it reads:
 * "I really do not understand the exceptional attitude people take against the Jews.... The Jew is mentally and physically precocious and he ages and dies sooner than the average European; but in that and in a certain disingenuousness he is simply on all fours with the short, dark Welsh. He foregathers with those of his own nation and favours them against the stranger, but so do the Scotch. I see nothing in his curious, dispersed nationality to dread or dislike. He is a remnant and legacy of Medievalism, a sentimentalist perhaps, but no furtive plotter against the present progress of things. He was the medieval Liberal; his persistent existence gave the lie to Catholic pretensions all through the days of their ascendancy, and today he gives the lie to all our yapping "nationalisms", and sketches in his dispersed sympathies the coming of the world state.... Much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die."
 * Not only did Wells disociate himself from Anticipations, his later books actively contradicted it, e.g. in A Modern Utopia he specifically argues a place in the furture for the non-white races, and it is by no means a subjugated one. It should be noted, though, that his views in that context were very advanced for the time and so are couched in more circumspect terms than he would undoubtedly have used, had he been writing decades later. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this - I will read a some more about Wells before making any suggestions for the article. I will however, make a few brief comments now. (1) "Anticipations" is not 'nearly impossible' to obtain - there are over 100 copies available on abebooks.co.uk and it seems to be available as a paperback in the US. (2) Not sure that Wells state of health means his views in this book can be ignored (3) is there a reference to where he repudiated these views? I had understood that he retained a belief in Eugenics throughout his life (4) the quote about Jews is riddled with prejudice and in any case makes no mention of "those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people" (5) to argue for a 'future for the non-white races' is hardly advanced thinking for the early 20th Century. As far as I am aware mass extermination of other races was not widely advocated in the UK at that time. --John Price (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) My apologies - the observation about the availablity of Anticipations was a holdover from when I first checked in the wake of Michael Coren's 1993 "biography," which relied so heavily on it at a time when it genuinely was hard to find. You will note, however, that apart from the 1999 US paperback and print-on-demands, the vast majority of other copies are from the first half of the twentieth century, if not the first quarter. I think I'm right in saying that the 1999 paperback only exists because it is public domain in the US.
 * (2) The state of someone's health has a very great bearing on the state of their mind. At the time Wells wrote Anticipations he thought he had only a few months to live, and was writing as much as he could as quickly as he could to provide for his dependents. He was subsequently critical of his output at that time for a variety of reasons.
 * (3) He clearly did, since his later works contradicted Anticipations on numerous points. At the time eugenics was not the fringe or extremist view it is now, but in any case Wells's on interpretation was based more on social worth than race. His view was of negative eugenics, not positive eugenics, meaning he viewed it as a way of avoiding disabilities and congenital diseases, not creating a "master race."
 * (4) The passage I quoted clearly contradicts the idea of Wells as anti-Semitic, despite the fact many people claim that he was based on the passage you quoted from the same book. That demonstrates the danger of cherry-picking quotes.
 * (5) I think the inherent problem is that you don't seem to have a clue about what people were thinking at the time the book was published, whether in Britain, Europe, or elsewhere. You should stop assessing the attitudes of the past based solely on the filter of today. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to play the trading insults game. Instead, I will provide the briefest possible summary of John Carey's treatment of Wells in his polemic, ‘The Intellectuals and The Masses’. Wells, he says, was influenced by Malthus, from who he learned a terror of over-population, and Darwin, from who he learned that the weak are destined for extinction. This, coupled with his personal dislike of suburbia, led him to contemplate with equanimity the mass destruction of, what he considered to be, the less worthwhile groupings of humanity. It also explains his belief that the State has the right, even the duty, to regulate the reproductive capacity of its citizens with the objective of improving the quality of the human stock. This theme runs through his political beliefs and indeed his science fiction where mass extermination is a recurrent element. Carey allows that Wells was actually ambivalent about the masses as shown by his writing for a popular market and the sympathetic (if childlike) portraits of the common man (eg Polly, Kipps) in his realist fiction. In the end though, his thinking led him to belief in a common social order brought about by ‘grim systematisation’.


 * Such views, I suggest, reflect greatly to his discredit and destroy any claim he might have to moral vision. Certainly, such ideas were promoted by a few other intellectuals in the early part of the century but they were also opposed by others (e.g. Chesterton); not everyone needed to see the Nazi experiment in action to understand the reality of what Eugenics and population control really involved. Overall, I am genuinely perplexed as to why contemporary left wing figures such as Michael Foot try to promote Wells as a progressive thinker while bowdlerising his true opinions. I find the excuses offered above (book out of print, poor health, sucked in by the intellectual climate, quite liked Jews etc.) to be weak in relation to the horrific ideas he was guilty of promoting. --John Price (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If yours is an accurate precis of Carey's work, then it would seem that like Michael Coren before him, he has selectively cherry-picked everything that supports his theory, whilst ignoring everything that contradicts it. From what you have said, it seems that your had already reached a critical opinion of Wells before reading Carey's book, so it is of little surprise that you accept his interpretations so readily. You mention Michael Foot; have you actually read his book on Wells, as well? Have you actually read Anticipations or A Modern Utopia. I think in particular you shoudl read the chapter "Race in Utopia" in the latter. Only a very blinkered reader could ignore all of Wells's contextualisation and qualification in it. I would note that Carey's book is not solely devoted to Wells, and yet you do not seem to be interested in pursuing the other writers he indicts. Wells was of his time, and despite what you think, he was truly progressive in comparison to his contemporaries. To pick on certain aspects that in retrospect can be twisted to seem objectionable now as a reason to damn everything he did is intellectually dishonest. More to the point, it is clear that Wells's views on many things changed over the years, and to judge him on his first opinion on them while ignoring what he said subsequently is equally illogical. As regards the specifics that seem to be troubling you, you need to look no further than Wells's The Rights of Man (1940), which effectively prohibits everything the likes of Coren and - it seems - Carey would have us believe Wells wanted to do. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

← This whole discussion has gone off the rails. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for debating the merits of the subject itself. Let's drop it, shall we? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've said what I want to - no more comments from me. --John Price (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Such as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells was a Socialist and an Eugenist. In fact, Socialism is Eugenist for definition. And this site: [Cambridge] has a short article remebering the support to eugenics from this Marxist.Agre22 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Design & Industries Association
Hello everyone. I would like to include information about H G Wells involvement with the Design & Industries Association. I've tried once but my changes were undone as my username was the same as the relevant organisation name. I'm new to editing the wiki so would like to check that I can now do this without treading on toes. I'm aware that web forums can be taken over as certain people might want their way only. I hope this is not the case here as I think it's important that the text is added as it doesn't seem to be referred to elsewhere.

The text relates to Wells' involvement with the DIA as described at http://www.dia.org.uk/page/AboutUs/Nothing_Need_be_Ugly.

I was hugely frustrated earlier after composing text only to have it removed; although I do undrestand that it was for a valid reason in this instance. I hope someone can help.

Regards

DIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesIndSoc (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 September 2009


 * For information, your addition was this. I think the first two sentences are fine - "Wells brought his interest in Art & Design and politics together when he and other notables signed a memorandum to the Permanent Secretaries of the Board of Trade, amongst others. The memorandum expressed the signatories concerns about British Industrial Design in the face of foreign competition. The suggestions were accepted, leading to the foundation of the Design & Industries Association". The third sentence is probably unnecessary - "The memorandum which HG Wells signed is referred to in the book about the Design and Industries Association, Nothing Need be Ugly and can be seen at ."
 * I've added back the first two sentences & provided a reference in the customary format; there's no guarantee it'll stick, but I trust any deletion will be discussed here first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note in particular that people more familiar with this article may take the view that his involvement in signing the memorandum was a fairly incidental part of his politics; do we have a clue how many other causes he support3ed by adding his signature? Is his interest in industrial design significant or the result of a convivial whisky and soda in the right company? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Does Belloc deserve a mention?
Seeing as how the lengthy debates between Wells and Belloc on a great number of issues brought into the world a good number of books and essays from both said authors and contributed to Wells' public prescience i was surprised not to see atleast a passing reference to the man and their academic relationship.

Crimes of British imperialism
I have skimmed through In The Fourth Year but couldn't find a passage complaining of "the crimes of British and French imperialism". Wells indeed saw WW1 as a war against imperialism: "not German imperialism merely, but British and French and Russian imperialism, and we were saying this not because it was so, but because we hoped to see it become so", but he viewed British and French regimes as "inaggressively" possessing their territories. Is there a page number from which to make a proper footnote? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAICS this passage totally misrepresented the book, so I've pruned it a bit. Not entirely trusting my powers of précis, I've included a couple of quotes in the footnotes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad the greatest personality
Wells's view of the prophet Muhammad is set out in A Short History of the World, chapter 43. It is far from complimentary, although he comments positively upon Islam itself and the first Caliph Abu Bakr. As the unattributed statement in the article about the author's regard for Muhammad directly contradicts this known view, as expressed in the book, I am deleting it. There seems no need to cite the passage from Short History in the article, unless this action is disputed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy
The article says that Wells was "very sympathetic" to technocratic ideas and that "Technocracy counted among its admirers H.G. Wells", but is there any real evidence that Wells was seriously interested in technocracy? Johnfos (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Johnfos (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is referenced, and anyone who has read Wells knows he was a believer in Technocracy. For one example, consider the favorable portrayal of "Wings Over the World" in Well's screenplay Times to Come. On the other hand, the paragraph is badly written, so I'm not sorry to see it go. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Possessive case
I suppose I asked for this: complaining of an edit that changed just two of the correct possessive Wells's to the incorrect Wells' has led to the contributor changing the whole lot to the incorrect form. This form is "still evolving" (Cambridge Guide to English Usage) and there is no reason for making a change to the usage here to suit a drive-by editor's personal preferences. In fact, there is good reason not to, if the rules in WP:RETAIN are to be followed. In deference to the regular contributors, I propose a revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nick Cooper, for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "Wells's" is "correct" and "Wells'" is "incorrect". And vice-versa.
 * It seems clear to me that the choice is subjective, not objective.
 * If you feel the choice is objective, I'd be keen to read something definitive; personally, I have not been able to find anything definitive.
 * and there is no reason for making a change to the usage here - Well obviously there is a reason. Just because you don't agree with it does not mean there is no reason.
 * In fact, there is good reason not to - I'm sure there must be several reasons not to.
 * In deference to the regular contributors, I propose a revert. - Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (P.S. If you have some definitive information, I'm keen to read it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))


 * My main argument (although it doesn't read in that way) is the one of "deference to the regular contributors": the ones who have put the article together wrote it like that and so, at least to this contributor, there would need to be a strong reason to change our preference. The "variety of opinions and still-evolving practices" on this topic preclude anyone from proclaiming that one or other version is correct (yes, I know...) so any change on these grounds should be resisted.


 * Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Whether or not it is/was your main argument, it's the only one you presented that I feel has any merit, and I agreed with it . I don't understand you[r] response, or why you chose to respond. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Logic requires that the consistent rule "it makes no difference...if they end in an s or not" be applied, but, crucially, this rule applies to proper nouns only by extension. The rules in the case of proper nouns are many and complex (e.g., ordinary man? with an extra s: Jones's; Literary subject? without: Keats'; Multi syllable and famous? no s). In the face of this, the modern tendency is for consistency, "achieved by doing away with special cases, and treating names ending in -s to the full apostrophe -s just like any other noun. This is recommended by the Chicago Manual (2003) and the Australian Government Style Manual (2002)". In other words, the modern preference (as Old Moonraker occasionally alien to me) is consistently to use the extra s. All quotes from the international Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Pam Peters, ISBN 0-521-62181-X.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Logic" doesn't  require  any such thing.
 * but, crucially, this rule applies to proper nouns only by extension. - Which rule?
 * The rules in the case of proper nouns are many and complex - Indeed. That was my point.
 * In the face of this - Sorry, in the face of which/what?
 * the modern tendency is for consistency - That's a bit of a random comment. (Not to mention unsupported ... )
 * just like any other noun. - Oh come on. That's easily demonstrated as an inaccurate generalisation!
 * This is recommended by ...  - OK, I'll do some "homework".
 * In other words, the modern preference ... is consistently to use the extra s. All quotes from the international Cambridge Guide to English Usage'', Pam Peters, ISBN 0-521-62181-X. - More "homework".
 * Thanks for the reply and the information. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, perhaps it would have been clearer if I had opened with my source (my "definitive" source, as requested), to make it plain from the outset that the rules were Peters's (and that one would certainly have been "Peters'" under the old system) and not any "inaccurate generalisation" on my part. My lack of clarity notwithstanding, the above reading from User:Pdfpdf, particularly "I don't understand you[r] response, or why you chose to respond", still comes across as a bit disingenuous.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, perhaps it would have been clearer if I had opened with my source  - I agree.
 * still comes across as a bit disingenuous - Whatever. If you want to play silly word games, I'm not going to get in your way.
 * I believe my response showed good faith. If you want to behave otherwise, that's your problem, not mine. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By-the-way: I did ask a number of questions, and I am awaiting your response. If you are not going to respond, please advise, and I'll remove this page from my watchlist. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Disaffection with technology
User:Kalki101 has asked, on my talk page, for Wells's disaffection with technology towards the end of his life to be expanded. There is already a brief allusion to this in the last sentences of the "Politics" sub-section. He/she appears to be writing using a translating program. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even setting aside problems with translation, the quotation from Georges Bernanos ( I checked the passage in the French version of Wikipedia), presented by Kalki 101 [] to support the argument that Wells totally changed his mind on technology is flawed. While it reads as a direct quotation of a passage in "Mind at the End of its Tether", it is a collection of disjointed, partly indirect quotes from Wells's book. I can't find "We are a hundred years behind our inventions. This backwardness will increase" at all. In a long life and many literary works, Wells shifted between optimism and pessimism many times, death putting an end to this process at a point where there was a "deathbed conversion" for his enemies to seize upon. Putting any more stress on "Mind at the End of its Tether" would distort the article on Wells - a new article on this book is called for.--Mabzilla (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No change necessary here, then. Thanks for the research (and why didn't I think of that?). --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dealt with Kalki101's previous attempt to insert this material under Engagement and disengagement for Science and Technology above. Looking at it again, though, it seems that clear that what is actually being expressed in the Bernanos quote is the standard interpretation of Mind at the End of Its Tether, i.e. a disatisfaction with the human ability to use and keep pace with science and technology, rather than with science and technology itself. My invocation of the quote from The World Set Free, of course, echoes your thoughts on basing too much on Wells's final work. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I wonder why the article doesn't mention The War in the Air, another dystopia, in which he (in 1907) foretold aircraft changing the character of wars (cf his 1921 preface), which I consider as amazing as foretelling radioactive bombs. Actually, only not having read The World Set Free myself keeps me from putting {cn} after the sentence This book contains what is surely his biggest prophetic "hit." --Thrissel (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)