Talk:The War of the Worlds

1901
Where in the novel does the date 1901 occour? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All we know is it is set in the early 20thC, no even what decade. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is the place we should have the discussion. I'm going to link to the conversation started at User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 13 BusterD (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not completely accurate. It can be worked out with a modicum of accuracy:

''During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen on the illuminated part of the disk, first at the Lick Observatory, then by Perrotin of Nice, and then by other observers. English readers heard of it first in the issue of Nature dated August 2. I am inclined to think that this blaze may have been the casting of the huge gun, in the vast pit sunk into their planet, from which their shots were fired at us. Peculiar markings, as yet unexplained, were seen near the site of that outbreak during the next two oppositions.''


 * and

''The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet.''


 * Oppositions of Mars happen every 15 (or 17) years, so to keep things simple, 1894+45+6=1945, which is the stated date of 1896 plus three oppositions, plus the "six years ago" statement. The author's testimony was written around 1945, but the events happened in 1939.  All approximate of course.


 * Is this original research? I don't think adding up a couple of dates quoted in the text itself counts as OR, but I'm not fussy about adding it in.  Rather I'd be tempted to use it as reason to remove the "1901" claim that currently sits - and definitely doesn't appear in the text.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1895 is ion the novel, years ago is not, it may have been 1900, or 1906 or 1955. But yes this is my point, it is not 19800 or 1901, we can't be sure its 1939, or even 1955. At best we can say "early 20thC". Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you clarify the above text? I'm guessing you typed in a hurry, but I can't follow it.  For example, all the above I quoted is in the novel, including the, as are the oppositions, which even back in the 19th century were known, and their durations planned.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But "6 years ago now", is not a date, all we know is that the invasion occurred 6 years before the narrative was written, and that it occurred sometime around an opposition. so 1909 or 1924 or 1939 or 1954, but not 1900 or 1901. So the best we can say is "early 20th C". Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your given dates for Mars oppositions are incorrect though. They occur much more frequently than that (about every 2 years).  The British Astronomical society has a web page with observation reports from every Mars opposition from 1892 onwards - including the 1894, 1896 and 1899 oppositions described in Wells' book. 81.145.236.58 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note the actual dates are 1901 · 1911 · 1920 · 1928 · 1937 · 1946 · 1956 [] but Wells may not have been aware of that but 1901 might well have been a possible date. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what the actual dates are, the novel states the opposition happened in 1894. Additionally it states that two oppositions have occurred since then, and it's during the third that the actual invasion begins.  These are explicitly stated in the text - as I quoted above.  Anyway, the upshot is that 1901 is flat out wrong.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, so the two must be 1901 and 1911, so the opposition (and yes this is still bit OR) is 1920. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To confuse the matter, there was no oposition in 1894, it was in 1892 [], so Wells was not aiming for astronomical accuracy. He was not attempting prediction.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above statement is incorrect. Dates for Mars oppositions around the time the book was published are as follows:
 * October 1894
 * December 1896
 * January 1899
 * February 1901
 * These are taken directly from the British Astronomical society website (https://britastro.org/section_information_/mars-section-overview/read-reports-on-past-oppositions-of-mars). Wells was scientifically trained and seems to have drawn on genuine astronomical observations and predicted event timings to help flesh out his book (even in the 1890s Mars opposition dates could be accurately predicted decades in advance). 81.145.236.58 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we have a conflict between RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually we don't. I looked at the website you referenced and the 1901, 1911, 1920 etc dates you have cited are simply hyperlinks to the start date of the respective diagrams for each period shown below.  For example in the 1901 diagram, there are actually 8 Earth/Mars oppositions starting on the 22nd Feb 1901, followed by 29 March 1903 etc - and ending the period on the 10th Feb 1910.  The next diagram then starts from the 25 Nov 1911 opposition.
 * You have interpreted the hyperlinks themselves to be the dates of the opposition - rather than the dates within the diagrams when Earth and Mars are shown at close approach. The dates in the diagrams align with the dates I cited from the British astronomical society.  There is no conflict, both of the sources you and I have cited are in agreement. 81.145.236.58 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "The period from the 1892 opposition..." seems to me to say there was an opposition in 1892. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was one in 1892. From your own link the first opposition shown in the 1800s diagram is given as 4th August 1892, followed by the 20 Oct 1894 (the opposition Wells cited in the book).
 * The 1892 opposition is also the first Earth/Mars opposition to be described in a report on the British Astronomical Society website I linked to:
 * https://britastro.org/section_information_/mars-section-overview/read-reports-on-past-oppositions-of-mars/the-opposition-of-mars-1892
 * Like I said - your source and my source agree, there is no conflict 81.145.236.58 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We are both blugdeoning, it is time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are we blugdeoning? We have independently posted different citations that both agree with the dates given in Wells' book.  It seems pretty cut and dried.
 * The only thing we can't say with absolute certainty is that Wells was referring to the 1901 opposition when he stated "as Mars approached opposition" - however it seems unlikely that he would be so specific about the 1894, 1896 and 1899 oppositions occurring in sequence, then just randomly decide to skip one or more. It is reasonable to assume that the opposition Mars was "approaching" was the next in the sequence, since it would be consistent with the way he describes the previous 3.
 * I think one thing we can say with certainty is that the main narrative occurred after 1900 ("early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment").
 * We can split hairs all day about whether this was actually 1901, 1903, 1905, 1907 - depending on how many oppositions you think Wells may have just randomly left out, but the Feb 1901 opposition date seems to fit for me. It's narratively consistent and gives ~6 months travel time in order to land on Horsell common in the late spring/early summer which does not seem unreasonable.  It is consistent with current travel time estimates for modern spacecraft (perhaps another fairly accurate scientific prediction of Wells). 81.145.236.58 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is wp:or we need RS to say it was set in 1901, thus we are just going around in circles. If " during the next two oppositions" are 1896 and 1899 and the invasion is set 6 years after the latter that means 1905, not 1901. If it means 6 years after the casting, that means 1900. We do not know what wells meant. This is why this needs fresh eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He doesn't say the invasion is set 6 years after the two oppositions - he is recounting his story 6 years after the events happened:
 * "The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition........."
 * It is a retrospective recounting of his story, a biography if you will. It was never intended or told as a contemporary account of events (hence why he was able to also document his brothers side of the story). 2A00:23C5:3508:4301:5526:4789:9CFE:ED01 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also why the narrator was able to write the epilogue - which is clearly set many years after the invasion after some sense of normality had returned - and recounts how the bodies of the martians were examined along with their technology - and how some of the specimens are displayed in the British museum.
 * Several oppositions have occurred since and the narrator fears a renewed attack as each one approaches - as evidenced by the line in the epilogue:
 * "At present the planet Mars is in conjunction, but with every return to opposition I, for one, anticipate a renewal of their adventure." 2A00:23C5:3508:4301:5526:4789:9CFE:ED01 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Classic"
"The show uses a ground breaking interactive blend of virtual reality, volumetric holograms and live theatre to take visitors into the heart of this classic science fiction story like never before."

"The fighting machine (also known as a "Martian Tripod") is one of the fictional machines used by the Martians in H.G. Wells' 1898 classic science fiction novel The War of the Worlds."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Isn't it more of a subjective thing rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic"? Is it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven you mean it's not ok? Dornwald (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe "Called classic", but not in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation consistency
It seems that at least some of the citations are short-form, particularly in the lead. Since I'm excerpting the lead section for the First contact (science fiction) article, I've chosen to change the lead's citation style to be more consistent with both articles. At the moment, I have no intention of doing the same with the rest, as I am focusing on completing my work on the first contact article. Ships &amp;  Space (Edits) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)