Talk:Fahrenheit 451

Clarisse's age

Resolved

Clarisse is "almost 17" at the beginning of the novel. So, she is "16" or "almost 17", not "17". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that from, but on page 5 (my edition anyway) she says, "I'm seventeen and crazy." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

i can back this. She says "I'm seventeen and crazy." in my 60th edition 2601:145:C300:47E0:8C5C:5572:BCC2:AFED (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

While she does say that, later in the novel she says that she'll be seventeen in a month, I think. I remember her saying she isn't seventeen yet, just not what page it is on. Umbreon00 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the quote I found in the book itself, various Cliff's Notes-esque summaries I found all identify her as being 17. If you find your quote, we might have something. From where I'm sitting, though, the only sources we have say 17. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In my edition, she says she is "17 and crazy" on page 21, but corrects herself to say that she is 17 "next month" on page 23. 71.193.22.55 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The anon is correct. I shall quote it: "Yes." He thought about it. "Yes, I have. God knows why. You're peculiar, you're aggravating, yet you're so easy to forgive. You say you're seventeen?"

"Well--Next month."

"How odd. How strange. And my wife is thirty and yet you seem so much older at times I can't get over it."

Page 23, lines 7, 8, and 9. Umbreon00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can independently confirm that she is 16. An anonymous user changed it back even after this discussion. After concluding my post here, I will see what clarifications I can make in the article to be accurate. I have the book on a Kindle and as authority and validity for my case, I will be uploading pictures. First, I have searched the book for "sixteen". I found one entry. It is unrelated. I am unsure how to upload the image, if somebody would like it, they could help me. I then searched the book for "seventeen". This yielded three results. One of these is here saying she is a month shy of seventeen. This is later in the story. I also have the image for this one. I will most likely edit the page to accomodate a chronologically natural understanding of the book. This will be the most accurate and practical solution. It will also prevent this from becoming an issue in the future as it provides clarifying information. Michael Harrington 03:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefensorOfApollo (talk • contribs)

She is in fact, 16, not 17. I have corrected the mistake in the article and put a code comment to warn people about making the mistake that she is 17. Marking as resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Linking to fireman?

Resolved

Why is the first line linking the firemen in this book to real life firemen. They serve different purposes and are not equivocal, I don't think they should be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefensorOfApollo (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that linking here is probably not desired. I have delinked and put quotes around it instead. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Recent Edit (March 1)

Resolved

The subject of Fahrenheit 451 is controversial. On one hand, it is a discussion of government control and censorship. On the other hand, it is a social critique, a warning of what might happen if people are apathetic and don't protect their rights. For anyone interested in what I have to say, you should read pages 53-62 in the book. While Bradbury discusses both censorship and natural social pressures as explanations for the emergence of a dystopian society in the book, my personal opinion is that he focused much more on social pressures, not censorship. It was "technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure" that "carried the trick", not the government. Yes, Wikipedia articles should be impartial, so my personal opinions and interpretations are not to be taken too seriously. However, I think the edits on March 1 by Thiesen should be examined carefully and then largely undone. They have removed meaningful content from the article and skewed the interpretation of the text. These edits certainly are not impartial. They have almost entirely removed discussion of an important interpretation of the text which has been supported in several peer reviewed scholarly articles (see "What 'Carried the Trick'? Mass Exploitation and the Decline of Thought in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451." by Rafeeq McGiveron in Extrapolation 37.3) and by the author himself. 71.227.252.76 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What it looked like to me was that Thiesen's edits simply changed the lead to include a Bradbury interview, moved around some info, and added more information which included stuff from Bradbury himself. As far as I can tell, no meaningful content was removed, and all of the content from the previous edits still seem to be present in the article. Some parts even seem to expand on the stuff already there. Granted, I haven't exactly investigated Thiesen's edits in depth, but they seem sound. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The edits completely remove mention of this interpretation of the text from the introduction and remove all discussion of this interpretation save for what is said in the block quotes and a single mention of Bradbury's 2007 interview at the bottom of the Themes section. Although the block quotes in the Themes section do address this interpretation of the text, it is the Wikipedia article's job to explain the contents of those quotations and clarify their meaning to the reader. You can use a quotation to bring out different points, depending on how you introduce and explain it, and I think the way these quotes are being explained presently colors the reader's interpretation. Moreover, I think the edits marginalize the interpretation of Bradbury's novel as a social critique of contemporary society, rather than a critique on censorship and government control. As I have said, I think the former interpretation is at least as important as the second. It shouldn't be offered as an alternate interpretation, but rather as a second and equally important one. I have read more thoroughly, and I think I was mistaken and hasty in calling for Thiesen's edits being undone or largely undone. I think what needs to be done now is to re-integrate the societal critique interpretation in the introduction and Themes section. It would really be a small edit that could make a large difference. 71.227.252.76 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a fair judgment. Do you think you could make the necessary edits? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh gosh, sorry for neglecting this discussion, I forgot all about it. I got interested in this article because I was writing an English paper on Fahrenheit 451. Then writing the paper kinda took over my life. And now here I am, at the end of the quarter, trying to keep my head above water with all my classes. I could certainly make the edits. I'm done with finals on Tuesday, so I could probably get it done by Wednesday. 205.175.97.236 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits have put the social themes of the book back to the fore-front. I think it helps resolve your valid concerns. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Burned Down -> Burned Out

Changed an instance of "burned down" to "burned out." Houses in Fahrenheit 451 are fireproof, and the firemen only burn the contents of the house - books, furniture... people.

You could have said this in the edit summary. Please use that next time. Also, seeing that the phrase "burn out" has nothing to do with actual burning, I've changed it back. But you bring up a good point, and I'm open to having an alternate wording. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The current wording no longer says either phrase, so this is obsolete. In general though, the semantics introduced by the fact that the houses themselves are fireproof is tricky. Also, when Montag burns his house, the books does say that he literally burns it: I guess the fireproof casings can fail. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the book before I saw the movie. So, I initially assumed and keep assuming that as far as the book goes, houses may be fireproof in general, and so there is no need of a fire-fighting brigade, but still they do burn when entirely soaked with kerosene and lighted (and only then).--2001:A61:2088:ED01:DC58:D565:682C:3799 (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not changing it on main page because not sure but...

Look, I've read the book, and I'm pretty sure that it's not about government censorship. It's just another of those 'TV makes you stupid' stories. You saw a lot of them on the twilight zone too, oddly. Honestly it felt like a complaint about a society that was addicted to TV and unimportant factoids, not a complaint about a government that removed dissenting ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.102.134 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"... the novel is frequently interpreted as being critical of state-sponsored censorship.... Bradbury stated that the book explored the effects of television and mass media on the reading of literature.[9] Bradbury went even further to elaborate his meaning, saying specifically that the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state—it is the people." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Bradbury would agree with you. In multiple interviews and writings he suggests that F451 is about the dumbing down of literature and not really about censorship. Yet, the novel itself seems somewhat at odds with this though; and certainly legions of high school teachers and others have interpreted censorship as a primary theme. In the end, a book is about what its readers think it is, even when the author themselves suggests otherwise. The work has to stand alone. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me generate a list of scholarly articles

Hi, I see that this article has 230 watchers. I don't know how many of those are active editors though. This article is in pretty poor shape. The writing is sub-par and the text often doesn't even match up to the outline structure. It will largely have to be re-written. It's pretty unfortunate that after almost 4000 edits by 2000 distinct users, we still have such a shoddy article. Sort of shows that piece-meal development doesn't always work.

I am having trouble finding peer-reviewed scholarly articles that analyze Fahrenheit 451. Google searches largely turn up stuff just related to Bradbury himself or essays written by college students. I am not familiar with many English Lit journals. Heck, I don't even know what the best way to search for Eng Lit articles is. Perhaps we can leverage the knowledge of the page watchers to at least develop a list of articles directly related to the novel that would be good to perhaps use as references? Please add any below that you can find or are aware of?

If you really have an interest in the novel, now would be a good time to reinvigorate it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A Google scholar search turns up a number of sources that seem to fit the bill: [1]. While some are clearly mentions or merely allude to F 451 as a dystopian society, others seem to be of considerable depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This PDF file from Cuesta College gives a pretty good listing. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

24th century in fiction?

This article is currently listed in Category:24th century in fiction. I do not recall the time frame of the novel ever being pinned down. My copy says that "we've won two atomic wars since 1990", so it must be set after 1990. Other than that, it mentioned several times that about half a century has elapsed since books were banned. It's possible that pieces of information are given that can narrow down the century to the 24th but I do not see them. This category will have to be removed without a convincing argument to sustain it, perhaps replaced with the more ambiguous Category:Works about the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The category was added by this edit. I have contacted the user to see if they remember why they added it. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot recall exactly why I added it, but Sparknotes agrees, http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/451/facts.html GrahamHardy (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:GrahamHardy. Sparknotes seems clearly wrong here. The novel is set at an unspecified time. A google search for "when does 'Fahrenheit 451' take place" provides many answers on Q&A forums suggesting as much, with the only instances of "24 century" referring to Sparknotes. Sparknotes also claims Clarisse is a "seventeen-year-old", a demonstrably false statement that is a testament to their rigor, or lack thereof. A brief reading of their character list makes it seem like they are also rather extrapolative regarding their characters' personalties. I've scoured the novel for more clues regarding the time setting and have failed to find any. All things considered, I don't think Sparknotes can be considered a reliable source here. I will remove the category. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The 2000 book Rad Bradbury: A Critical Companion by Robin Anne Reid confirms that F451 is set in an "unnamed city in the United States, possibly in the Midwest, in some undated future". I have seen the 24th century figure mentioned here and there since I last commented. Unfortunately I forget where but I believe they were study-guide-like or online material. The unreliability of these sources has become quite apparent while researching this novel. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at a copy of "The Fireman". Its opening sentences pinpoint the time setting at "One thirty-five a.m. Thursday morning, October 4th, 2052 AD" (although I note that day would actually be a Friday, not a Thursday). I haven't read the story yet but Mr. Montag is introduced on the first page so it definitely has overlap with F451. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Pedestrian" is set "in this world of A.D. 2131" in November. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The year of "The Pedestrian" may have been updated by Bradbury at some point from 2053 to 2131. See the discussion Talk:The_Pedestrian#Changing the year back to 2053. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Turns out (as I explain on the other talk page) that the original year from the 1951 publication was 2131, then Bradbury changed it to 2052 for republication in 1953's The Golden Apples of the Sun anthology. The changes were somewhat sloppily made and a time contradiction occurred within the story regarding "last year's election in 2052". The error was published several times before S Is for Space (1966) set the year to 2053 and fixed the contradiction. The Match to Flame book must have simply used the original story's time-setting. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am "unresolving" this topic because new evidence has come to light. First, here are some links to archived discussions that touch on this: 21st century or 24th century?, time?, Notes on setting and other issues. The last discussion is rather interesting because it points out a quote from the novel that supports the 24th century figure. Captain Beaty during his monologue says, "Out of the nursery into the college and back to the nursery; there's your intellectual pattern for the past five centuries or more." It's unclear when he is anchoring the beginning of this pattern. I would agree based on the text that the most likely explaination is the pattern is presumed to start in the 20th century. Yet Beatty may also be using the Civil War or the 19th century or the Fireman's "rule-book" official timeline (mentioned by Beatty but undetailed in the novel). Also Beatty says "five centuries or more", which is not precise enough to pin it down to the 24th century. I think the best idea is to leave the article text saying set in an unspecified future with a footnote giving Beatty's "five century or more" quote. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Feb. 1970 article "A Study of the Allusions in Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'" by Peter Sisario (The English Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 201-205+212) is a reference that uses the 24-th century figure. This is probably the most sensible interpretation of the novel's words, however, as the footnotes details, the text is not specific enough to support this figure definitively. Although it's nice to have a ref that gives the 24th century as the time setting, I think the present wording of the Wikipedia article should stay as is. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The timeframe wasn't important enough to include in the novel itself, so I don't think that we need to string together tenuous sources to nail down a century. In fact, I support removing the "one interpretation" claim in the footnote as it is not clear why that interpretation is more worthy of inclusion than the others. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Themes

One of the sections I'm least happy about in the article is the section on themes, which seems largely based on just p.59 of Reid's Ray Bradbury: A Critical Companion. I'm not quite sure how it should be written but I think gathering different themes suggested by various writers is a good start. You may suggest or add potential themes to the list I've started below. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

list of potential themes

• censorship

• a frequent cited theme although Bradbury himself seems to distance himself from it as a purposed one

• resistance against conformity imposed by a mass media

• Reid p.99 (originally suggested by M. Keith Booker?)
• de Koster p.95: Kingsley Amis's "A Skillfully Drawn Conformist Hell"

• use of technology to control individuals

• Reid p.99 (originally suggested by M. Keith Booker?)

• self-examination

• de Koster p.55: Rafeeq O. McGiveron's "Mirrors and Self-Examination in Fahrenheit 451"

• metamorphosis

• de Koster p.63: Wayne L. Johnson's "Montag's Spiritual Development"

• the importance of wilderness

• de Koster p.66: Rafeeq O. McGiveron's "The Power of Wilderness in Fahrenheit 451"

• consumerism

• de Koster p.85: David Seed's "A Condemnation of Consumerism"

• nihilism

• de Koster p.113: William F. Touponce's "Overcoming Nihilism in the Modern World"

Agree and there is an appearance of bias in the writing. It notes that he wrote it in the "McCarthy Era" and concludes as fact "he was concerned about censorship" The next paragraph showing an opposing opinion it states, "Instead he usually claimed that the real messages..." using the word "claimed" appears to intentionally suggest that Bradbury's interpretation of his book are incorrect or that he is not being honest. This does not appear to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.188.216 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"claims" merely gives his claim versus what others have taken from it. An author's claims on what a book is "about" may differ from what the generality of readers may gather, without the author being dishonest or incorrect about what is in the end an opinion, not an objective fact. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:4CA:813C:8550:16FE (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

in this interview in LA Weekly from 2007 Bradbury discusses "Fahrenheit 451 is not, he says firmly, a story about government censorship. Nor was it a response to Senator Joseph McCarthy"

and "Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature."

a previous poster noted an earlier interview to suggest that Bradbury may be in error or changed his mind later. Since this is posted, it must be noted this fact from the article, "As early as 1951, Bradbury presaged his fears about TV, in a letter about the dangers of radio, written to fantasy and science-fiction writer Richard Matheson." you can read the quote in the link

The Author states that Bradbury is clear on his point, "But one of L.A.’s best-known residents wants it understood that when he wrote it he was far more concerned with the dulling effects of TV on people than he was on the silencing effect of a heavy-handed government."

Should these facts and this reference be added to the topic? The documented opinions of the author on his own work may be quite relevant.

http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.188.216 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 50.156.188.216 (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

References

The impression I have is that the censorship angle was somewhat ginned up by his publisher when the book came out as a means of providing topical appeal and thereby increasing sales (ironically enough.) Also think his censorship concerns predated the McCarthyism era (strictly, from Feb. 1950) The Hollywood Ten were right in his bailiwick, afetr all. Bradbury spoke and wrote against McCarthy by name in 1952-53.68.178.50.46 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Spoken Word Grammy nominee?

According to the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album article, one of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451 was nominated for a Grammy. The article gives no source and I haven't been able to confirm this. I have confirmed (using the Grammy website) that the Grammy winner is correct but I haven't seen a listing of its competition that years. (There's also some disparity in how the Grammy website and Wikipedia are calling the Awards of that year. The Grammy website is listing those Awards as for 1976, while the Wikipedia article is calling them 1977.) Jason Quinn (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Found some references. It is mentioned in the Jan. 22, 1977 Billboard newspaper in the section "19th Annual Grammy Awards Final Nominations" under "Best Spoken Word Recording". I can't quite make out the page from the Google scan. The relevant part says "Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, Listening Library". A further Google Book search finds two more confirmations, both unfortunately only barely allow public inspection of the sources. I could however see small blurbs in the search results that were readable scans. One from "School Library Journal, Volume 51, Issues 4-6" (published by R.R. Bowker Company, Xerox Company, and originally from Pennsylvania State University) reads "1976 Listening Library receives its first GRAMMY* nomination for Ray Bradbury's reading of Fahrenheit 451." The other is from "Previews, Volume 5" (published 1976 by R. R. Bowker Company and originally from the University of Michigan) and says "Our audio production of Ray Bradbury reading from his Fahrenheit 451 was nominated for a 'Grammy' Award as one of the best spoken recordings of 1976,...". I have preserved the bolding used in the sources. I think it's verfied by reasonable sources that it was in fact Grammy nominated. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The pages in Billboard with the Grammy nominations are 110 and 117. Although I can't see the page number on the first page of the Google scans, at the bottom of the page says "(Continued on page 117)". When you click it and go to the remainder of the article, it says "Continued from page 110", which is the page we want. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Year of the computer game

I'm trying to verify the year of the computer game. The current article says 1986, which I think is wrong. I have easily found many websites that suggest the game was released in 1984 and also the reviews given in the Fahrenheit 451 (video game) article were published in 1985, which makes 1986 sort of absurd. Still, I haven't found any reviews in sources I think easily pass WP:RS. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reply to this topic at the Fahrenheit 451 (video game) article talk page's "Year of release discussion" thread. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The date is just a minor point, a more important addition that needs to be put in is that the game does say Fahrenheit 451, but it is loosely based on Fahrenheit 451, being placed after the events of the book. (BTW It is more based on the book than the film as those cybernetic dogs make an appearance in the game. I can't remember much more about the game, as it has been quite a while since I played it. The game is now probably considered as Abandonware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.148.46 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis section

One missing section so far is an analysis section where the writing style itself is elaborated. The summary at Spark Notes gives an outline of what such a section might look like. Things to include would be the narration style (third-person limited omniscinet), identification of the protagonist (Montag) and antagonist (Captain Beatty and society), the climax, the falling action, tense, foreshadowing, symbolism, and so forth. The general kind of stuff covered by high school teachers. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"...in the future after the year ____"

A new issue has come to my attention regarding the time setting of the novel. Those "cubbyhole editors" appear to have been tweaking the year mentioned for the two atomic years from its original value of 1960. Various versions have subsequently also used 1990 and 2022. This link to the Ray Bradbury Message Board gives a fairly complete listing of the values used by the various publications. I don't yet know if these changes were made with Bradbury's approval or not. It seems that another footnote may be required over the time setting. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fahrenheit 451/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Doing now... — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is indeed clear and concise, the lede is a tad bit skimpy and per WP:LEAD could be expanded a bit more, but it's good enough for GA and that could be something to address in a subsequent peer review afterwards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See above about lead section, and also words to watch. I did some copyediting but words like "though", "also", "althought", "but", "therefore", and "however", would be something to watch out for during copyediting and remove if at all possible.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below about citation-needed-tags.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I've added a bunch of cites-needed-tags. These will need to be addressed before the review can move on.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above about cite-needed tags.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Okay here, covers major aspects appropriately. I'd recommend going forwards expanding more about Censorship and Adaptation sects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, but see above about actually expanding subsects, particularly the part about history of Censorship please.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems here, NPOV presentation throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	If we exclude simple vandalism by IPs, stable history, just keep an eye on this in the future.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Hollywood10.jpg = missing fair use rationale for use on this article page.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above about image usage missing fair-use rationale for this page. Also, what about an image of author Ray Bradbury?
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just dropping in ... I see a few other issues :

• The article seems to be a bit heavy on the plot summary, having had a quick look at a few other book GAs such as Donkey Punch (novel). If elements of the plot are important because of their relevance in social or political history, they need to be cited to a source that says so.
• The lead contains the sentence "The title refers to the temperature that Bradbury understood to be the autoignition point of paper". Per GA criteria 1b, any sentence in the lead should be a summary of information in the body - however the reference to paper and autoignition does not appear in the body anywhere.
• The "Adaptations" section contains a lot of short paragraphs, several containing just one sentence. Per GA criteria 1b, these should be amalgamated.

In return, I'll see if I can cite some of the s, but I can't promise anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've been watching the changes and will take care of most of the suggestions. I disagree with a few but I'll discuss them on a case-by-case basis. I'm extremely busy right now (baby just born) and need some time to adjust to the new lifestyle. Haven't been able to edit but only a minute or two at a time, which is insufficient for the work needed here. Don't close review if goes past 7 days. Will be done. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! And no worries, we'll give ya some more time, — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As a father of two, I can assure you that being a new parent is several orders of magnitude more important than getting a GA to pass! I've only cited two things but time permitting I'll see if I can do more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Jason Quinn, have you had a chance yet to take another look at this? Totally no worries if you need a bunch more time, — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Last night I started catching up on the recent edits. I'm still only editing in short bursts that don't require much concentration. In a few more days the company that is staying with us will be leaving which will free up a bit more time. Tonight or tomorrow I plan on undoing an edit that a citation bot made a while back that was poor. As for your suggestions, one of the most important is regarding the photo of the Hollywood Ten. That's going to take a bit of work to figure out. I have to educate myself a little on US Fair Use laws. It would be a real shame to lose that photo. What's extremely strange is that the information Corbis gives for the photo may be wrong. I'd really like to pin down the location of the photo with 100% certainty. At the moment I don't trust Corbis' information that it was the Los Angles Courthouse. Images of the LA courthouse don't seem to match. I've been collecting a bunch of info on the Hollywood Ten (really fascinating story actually) just to try to solve this. One small thing I don't agree with was some of the changes you made of "but" to "and". I'm aware that people often use "but" incorrectly or when "and" would be a better choice but I think you over-extend the universality of using "and" instead of "but". So long as there's some element of contradiction (and it may be quite ethereal), "but" is an acceptable word choice; also, style and flow should be considered before changing "but" to "and". I will get around to polish'ing off this review. I spent literally probably or more hours on the article just to get it to nomination status, so I'm not going anywhere. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, totally fine, no problems. Keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, any updates? — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Been over a month since GA Hold, so closing this one for now. Feel free to let me know if you want to renominate for a 2nd GA Review at a later point in time, and if I've got a chance I'll take another look. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Fahrenheit with the California Commonwealth Gold Or Silver?

As it stands, the article says that the novel won a Gold Award from the California Commonwealth Club, but the Club's list on their website says it won Silver. The California Book Awards Winners 1931 - 2012 128.61.81.23 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Great question. The book "Conversations with Ray Bradbury" edited by Aggelis and the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by Tuck both say Gold. Your source is however direct and those two sources could be in error. Of course, the compiler of that document (Scott A. Davis) could also have made a mistake. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I contacted the Commonweath Club to resolve this. They responded by e-mail saying,

Our records from The Commonwealth of California’s 23rd Annual California Book Awards, show Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, as the 1953 Gold Medal winner. We have in hand the actual book submitted, with the original Gold Medal sticker still on it, and it is also recorded on our official listings kept through the years. Our 1953 Silver Medal went to The High and the Mighty by Ernest K. Gann.

The document above was simply in error for whatever reason. Looks like they switch the gold and silver medal winners by mistake, at least for that year. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Spelling error

This is just a minor thing -- in the sentence "Montag leaves the river in the countryside, where he meets the exiled drifters, lead by a man named Granger" "lead" should be spelled "led." Kimdulina (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so I'm quite sure I'm doing it wrong, but there's a minor grammatical error in the fourth sentence under "The Sieve and the Sand." It should read " Montag laments Mildred's suicide attempt, the woman who burned herself, and the constant din of bombers flying over their house taking part in a looming war NEITHER he, nor anybody else, knows much about." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.67.232 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 20 April 2014‎ (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

Add link to Wikipedia page for "Te Pedestrian" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian 2.236.243.39 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Actually, it was already linked, twice. However, Wikipedia's guidelines call for a term to be linked only once, at the first mention. So I fixed that.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some Hazards of Hasty Conclusions

Bradbury's anecdote about encountering a dazed woman with a "cigarette-package-sized radio" and "a dainty cone plugged into her right ear" dates not from "the late 1950s" but from the May 2,1953 issue of The Nation. This is what happens when you extrapolate back from a secondary source for your quote after deciding in advance the sequence of events that best fits your thesis. It should also be noted that since transistor radios did not come on the market until almost two years later it is most likely that what, if anything, Bradbury witnessed on that occassion was a woman using an early transistor hearing aid (on the market by 1952) and meanwhile being assisted by a doting husband.68.178.50.46 (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It seems like that issue of The Nation contains the story Bradbury story "Day After Tomorrow". Is this quote somehow part of that story or elsewhere in the issue? As is, the article suggests Bradbury recounted the story in the late 1950s. That may well be true even if the story is originally from 1953. Are you saying the material is improperly sourced? It would help if you suggest here a re-wording you think is best. Also, the tone of your message above is somewhat hostile and unpleasant. Please read WP:GOODFAITH. The editors here do their best but we are all humans and therefore fallible. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Bradbury wrote for The Nation was not a story but a nonfiction piece setting forth his views on the importance of science fiction. It was a very interesting moment when writers such as Bradbury, Vonnegut and Heinlein were breaking into the mainstream market, placing SF stories into slick publications such as The Saturday Evening Post and even having their stories adapted for radio. They were perceived as politically liberal and pioneers of a new "literary" science fiction, with Bradbury as their "dean". Bradbury had written an open letter to Republicans in the same publication (late November 1952, also as an ad in Variety ) after they took back the White House after 20 years, warning them not to continue McCarthyite smearing and red-baiting of Democrats in general. Of course, the red-baiting not only became institutionalised but the spread of television brought unprecedented changes to the political system and destroyed the short story market altogether within a decade or so. A couple of additional points of interest about the 1953 article: 1.It includes a box where Heinlein, Vonnegut and some editors in the field recommend titles (Heinlein plugs Vonnegut's novel, which tanked anyway, and Vonnegut plugs Heinlein and Bradbury. Hilarious.) 2.Legendary art critic Bernard Berenson reads it and initiates an unlikely friendship with Bradbury that lasts until his death in 1959. Now here's the problem with the argument in "Themes": Bradbury did not tend "to dismiss censorship as a chief motivating factor for writing the story" "as time went by". The anecdote about the lady in Beverly Hills supposedly hynotized by a hand-sized radio must refer to a date at least a month prior to May 1953 and therefore predates the 1956 interview in which he gives the "threat of book burning" as the chief motivating factor. The quote from Amis (1960) as given is clearly a modified version of the anecdote published in the then well-known 1953 article. Bradbury may indeed have been initially motivated by a perceived threat of bookburning but the sources provided do not support that interpretation once the earlier published version of the anecdote is taken into account. And if you want to insist on using secondary sources only, you'll have to quote Amis saying Bradbury said it after 1956 (which in fact he may have-the excerpt as printed differs from the 1953 version in such details as whether he "foretold" the " cigarette-package-sized radio" in Fahrenheit 451 orThe Fireman and whether the incident occurred a month or several weeks earlier). If someone has access to the Amis book they can check to see if the quote is sourced, otherwise what is presented on the F451 page is probably a paraphrase, a story that Bradbury recounted in various forms beginning in 1953 or earlier, or both. The published record we have so far suggests that he expressed concern about mass media first and "as time went by" about bookburning.

In fact, both themes appear The Fireman in Feb.1951. Both themes were clearly on Bradbury's mind for several years and both demonstrate a concern with threats to the habit of reading, which was not just our priceless cultural heritage but, not incidentally, the source of Bradbury's livelihood.

As to my perceived hostility and unpleasantness, I can only assure you that I am quite the pleasant entity. I am always willing to help a panhandler with a good story and haven't a shred of hostility towards those who can express themselves coherently in writing. As for Bradbury, he wrote well sometimes but I'm afraid he was a victim of his own success, his own sentimentality, and his own rather limited sense of what technology can do for instead of to us. Really wanted to stay a child in Illinois dreaming of rocket ships and never learning how to drive.

And the dear editors? I wish them all the best as they toil away bringing the sum of human knowledge to all of mankind (and any girls who happen to be interested.) My hat is off to 'em. Of course they're doing their best. Of course they're human. Of course they're fallible. And that's exactly why I'm here.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Took the time to consultNew Maps of Hell(1960). There is absolutely nothing in the text that dates the "quotation" to "the late 1950s". This is wholly the conclusion of the Wikipedia editor. It can only be dated to sometime in the period 1953-1960. The Bradbury "quote" appears on p.112 in an unnumbered footnote. As I pointed out above, the most economical explanation of this footnote is that it is a paraphrase of a part of the 1953 article in "The Nation" but with "Fahrenheit 451" substituted for "The Fireman" and several minor alterations and compressions. I can supply the 1953 version of the anecdote in full if anyone is interested.68.178.50.46 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "rewording" the subsection would help all that much. One problem is that Bradbury made conflicting statements about his motivation for writing these stories over the decades. This is not unusual. One approach might be to make note of this fact and note a couple of his statements, sourced, without going into a lot of detail then quote secondary sources to indicate that both themes are present, and that they are related...... You could probably make a good argument that the primary theme is indeed the effects of mass media but then the question arises of why he titled and marketed them as being about bookburning...I hope you found that guy in Indiana who's doing academic work on Bradbury. Honestly, I don't see that these stories have either the inherent complexity or literary standing to merit a lot of critical analysis (as opposed to their importance as cultural documents.) I don't even know if F451 has the structure of a novel.. Compare Nabokov's output during Bradbury's working life and the level and sheer volume of critical attention each currently receives and perhaps you'll see why I'm sceptical. Or of course you can just make personal remarks about my being "unpleasant" and "hostile" and simply dismiss what I have to say instead of engaging with it.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Equilibrium Listed as an Adaptation

In my opinion I believe that the theatrical film Equilibrium should be listed as a partial adaptation to Fahrenheit 451, the movie follows exactly the same theme with the exception that all extracurricular materials are burned rather than just books. The film (to me) is a modernized version of the exact same story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:CD01:51FA:D1E6:507F:7A96:556B (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451 now banned in Russia

http://geektimes.ru/post/252682/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.132.181.213 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

Paragraph three opens ... In 1954, Dandelion Wine won the

Should open with ... In 1954, Fahrenheit 451 won the TobiasBray (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done This was the edit which was the second from last edit, and was by by an experienced editor, User:842U - Not sure why s/he would suddenly do that - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggested item to add

Not sure where to put this, so I request someone else make mention of it. The book is seen from a first-person perspective by a soldier with a helmet cam. He sees a student in a classroom with the book and confiscates it just before the soldier and other soldiers arrest a teacher with brutal tactics because she was suspected of unknown and undisclosed activities. This takes place in the new TV series "Colony" on USA channel in season 1 episode 4 during the opening scene. The series is about a near-future alien occupation that uses the government to oppress the people...it's kind of a dystopian story and the book placement in this scene is probably an homage to the story in Fahrenheit 451 (I've not read it, but I was curious about it) which I think may have influenced the creativity behind Colony. 74.4.178.28 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Celsius 232.77777778

Imperial measurements are outmoded, so it is prob. high time that this classic was converted to Celsius. It would thus keep up with the times, and Fahrenheit 541 (sic) would be converted to kindling. Myles325a (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

One edition of the book was titled 233 Celsius, against bradbury's wishes. He wanted it to be fahrenheit. An Inhumane person (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How to say "451"

Does it matter how one says the number when referring to the book? It could be said as "four hundred fifty-one" or "four-fifty-one" or "four-five-one." Is there a consensus? How did Bradbury say the number when talking about the book? Did he or anyone else care how it was said, or is it irrelevant? Richard K. Carson (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late but I just finished the audio book, the narrator said it as "Farenheit four-five-one" ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a great question. I found one 1972 audio recording where Bradbury says "four-fifty-one" and a later interview so far on Youtube where Bradbury says "Four-Five-One". I also found another interview where an interviewer says "four-fifty-one" and Bradbury does not correct (either because he accepts both or simply not to be rude). There are probably more to be found with Bradbury himself saying the title. At the moment it appears Bradbury had no firm preference either way and either oscillated or changed the way it was said. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016

in most editions the book has 158 pages, please change page cout 24.37.33.74 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - the Simon & Schuster versions currently offered by Amazon have either 249 pages or 159 pages and you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request for 158. AFAIK we use the original hardback version for page counts - Arjayay (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Simon & Schusters edition has only 158 pages of Fahrenheit 451. After pages 159 it contains "History, Context, and Criticism" by Jonathan R. Eller. That edition is available in the internet archive.

I looked into a few different editions they all seem to have between 158 and 180 pages. 2003:D4:BF16:6500:A3DC:AEE9:A889:FED6 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Worked at Kingsport Press 34 years. Page count between different editions will depend on pointsize and font of the text; plus the problem of the Bal-Hi edition cleaned up for school libraries. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

See Also section relevant?

I don't know that the see also section is relevant in this article. Other than the names of the other articles having some relation to the title of the book, they don't seem related to the book itself. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The three items currently there (Fahrenheit 9/11, HTTP 451, and Centigrade 232) are mostly just allusions to the book and lack direct relevance so the section ought to be removed. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Bradbury himself hated that Moore took his title for his film knowing one had nothing in common with the other.

Isn't that exactly what see also sections are for? Topics that are related in some way? Incidentally, HTTP 451 is mentioned in the lede but nowhere else in the article, that should be fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no firm criteria to what belongs or doesn't belong in the See also section but the list is not indiscriminate. It's a matter of editorial judgment. In particular the section should not be used as a dumping ground for miscellaneous trivia or random references. Except for the similarity in name, Fahrenheit 9/11 has little to do with anything here. Same for Centigrade 232. I suppose a case could be made for HTTP 451 to be included but that would have to be weighed against the decision to add a whole section for a single link of questionable interest to readers. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have incorporated this section into the "Cultural references" section which was already above it. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

Add reference to 2010 audiobook edition from Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Fahrenheit-451/dp/B00412NH3K/ref=sr_1_1_twi_audd_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1468424045&sr=8-1&keywords=fahrenheit+451

and the new one narrated by Tim Robbins edit by Audible (also an Amazon company) http://www.audible.com/pd/Classics/Fahrenheit-451-Audiobook/B00M4PXF6K/ref=a_search_c4_1_2_srImg?qid=1468424132&sr=1-2

89.154.253.185 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Production" section for potential film article

Below is a write-up of a "Production" section for a potential film article since the page history that has this, Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film), will be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In July 1994, a new film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 began development with the studio Warner Bros. and actor Mel Gibson, who planned to star in the lead role. Scripts were written by Bradbury, Tony Puryear, and Terry Hayes. With the project estimated to be expensive and Gibson believing himself too old to portray the film's protagonist Guy Montag, the actor decided in 1997 to instead direct the film. By 1999, he had planned to begin filming with actor Brad Pitt in the lead role, but Gibson was forced to postpone due to Pitt's inavailability. Actor Tom Cruise was also approached for the lead role, but a deal was never made. According to Gibson, there was difficulty in finding a script that would be appropriate for the film, and that with the advent of computers, the concept of book-burning in a futuristic period may no longer work.

In February 2001, the project was revived as director Frank Darabont entered negotiations with Warner Bros. to rewrite Terry Hayes's script and direct the film. Gibson was confirmed to be involved only as a producer, and Darabont planned to complete the script by the end of 2002. In July 2004, Darabont said that he had completed the script and hoped to begin filming Fahrenheit 451 after completing a script for Mission: Impossible III. Darabont did not begin Fahrenheit 451 immediately, instead going on to direct The Mist. The director said in November 2006 that he would do long-term preparation work for Fahrenheit 451 while filming The Mist and hoped that he would begin filming after The Mist was completed.

"He stated his motivation for writing the book in more general terms.

Ok, so does anyone have a source for that, or any idea of what it is? Because if they don't it should probably be deleted as it seems to be an assumption. Also, I quite heavily doubt it is necessary in the opener, maybe give it its own section? 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Civlover (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

I suggest removing the "he stated his reason for writing the book in more general terms" as it has no citation, doesn't state the reason, and is not very appropriate for the opener. Civlover (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is hopelessly vague, I couldn't tell what whoever wrote that was meaning to say. I made an edit to try to clarify Bradbury's later interviews about the book, and pulled a source from the Themes section of the article. Would you agree this is better? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, much better Civlover (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fahrenheit 451. 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/20120511040857/http://www.ebr.lib.la.us/circ/advisory/onebook/aboutthebookF451.htm to http://www.ebr.lib.la.us/circ/advisory/onebook/aboutthebookF451.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

my unending battle against irony deficiency

"They [Marguerite Susan McClure and Ray Bradbury] were married in September of 1947, just a month before Ray's first book, Dark Carnival, was released by Arkham House. On the evening prior to his wedding day, Bradbury stacked up thousands of pages of manuscript, totalling some two million words, and made a giant bonfire of them. ("It was all bad writing, stuff that needed burning, and I've never regretted destroying it.")" -- William F. Nolan, "BRADBURY: Prose Poet in the Age of Space", The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, May 1963, p. 17.

-- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Public domain - when?

Does somebody know when will this be out of copyright? 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:661A (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

On January 1, 2093 (death of the author + 70 years + time until next beginning of a calendar year).--2001:A61:260C:C01:44C:521B:698D:AAA1 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• 2083, he died in 2012, not 2022 An Inhumane person (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't Find Evidence of the Radio drama.

My (very light) google searching only shows it's mention in this and various audio books. An Inhumane person (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask how you searched for it because I found it within a minute via the search string "1982 Fahrenheit 451 radio":

Ray Bradbury Audio, 1982 Fahrenheit 451 (90min) BBC Radio 4 (Nov 13 1982) and that was on a page last updated 21 August, 2009. The BBC's own website gives more details:

Author: Ray Bradbury

Dramatised by: Gregory Evans

Director: Brian Miller

Montag: Michael Pennington

Millie: Pamela Salem

Beatty: Peter Miles

Narrator: Jonathan Newth

Clarisse: Patience Tomlinson

Medic/Announcer: Spencer Banks

Stoneman: Michael Simkins

Woman: Susan Dowdall

Faber: Peter Tuddenham

Granger: Hugh Dickson

Simmons: Alan Dudley

It was insanely easy to find.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nazi book burning as inspirational source

Article https://time.com/5272968/fahrenheit-451-book-burning-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:A06E:7CA6:1C71:7C49 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what Bradbury would have made of our cancel culture today?TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Bible or not?

Resolved

The article currently states that the Montag stole the Bible and the Bible was burned. If I recall, it is never directly stated the book is the Bible. It's only very indirectly implied. Can anyone provide evidence otherwise? Jason Quinn (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Montag's hands picked up the Bible. He saw what his hands had done and he looked surprised. 'Would you like to own this?' Faber said, 'I'd give my own right arm.' Montag stood there and waited for the next thing to happen. His hands, by themselves, like two men working together, began to rip the pages from the book. The hands tore the flyleaf and then the first and then the second page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.22.162 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I cleared up my own confusion. And I think the article is fine. I will close this issue. For my own reference, there's the most important parts: There's a conversation between Montag and Mildred that goes:

Montag showed her a book. "This is the Old and New Testament, and-"

"Don't start that again!"
"It might be the last copy in this part of the world."
"You've got to hand it back tonight, don't you know? Captain Beatty knows you've got it, doesn't he?"
"I don't think he knows which book I stole. But how do I choose a substitute? Do I turn in Mr. Jefferson? Mr. Thoreau? Which is least valuable? If I pick a substitute and Beatty does know which book I stole, he'll guess we've an entire library here!"

Mildred's mouth twitched. "See what you're doing? You'll ruin us! Who's more important, me or that Bible?" She was beginning to shriek now, sitting there like a wax doll melting in its own heat.

Immediately after this passage comes this paragraph in which Montag imagines a conversation between himself and Captain Beatty:

He could hear Beatty's voice. "Sit down, Montag. Watch. Delicately, like the petals of a flower. Light the first page, light the second page. Each becomes a black butterfly. Beautiful, eh? Light the third page from the second and so on, chainsmoking, chapter by chapter, all the silly things the words mean, all the false promises, all the secondhand notions and time-worn philosophies." There sat Beatty, perspiring gently, the floor littered with swarms of black moths that had died in a single storm Mildred stopped screaming as quickly as she started. Montag was not listening. "There's only one thing to do," he said. "Some time before tonight when I give the book to Beatty, I've got to have a duplicate made."

So, yes, the book depicts the (imagined) burning of the Bible (as a terrible act). But the Bible was never burned. (These things were what the passage of time had twisted in my mind to cause some confusion.)

Then there's an extended discussion between Montag and Faber. In it there's this

Montag's hands picked up the Bible. He saw what his hands had done and he looked surprised.

"Would you like to own this?"
Faber said, "I'd give my right arm."
Montag stood there and waited for the next thing to happen. His hands, by themselves, like two men working together, began to rip the pages from the book. The hands tore the flyleaf and then the first and then the second page.

"Idiot, what're you doing!" Faber sprang up, as if he had been struck. He fell, against Montag. Montag warded him off and let his hands continue. Six more pages fell to the floor. He picked them up and wadded the paper under Faber's gaze.

So the Bible is torn. From later in the same dialogue between Montag and Faber, it appears he left the book with Faber and then says to Faber before he leaves:

"We all do what we do," said Montag. He put the Bible in the old man's hands. "Here. I'll chance turning in a substitute. Tomorrow--"

which suggests he didn't actually give the Bible to Captain Beatty. Then he has several books when he is reading to Mrs. Bowles and Mrs. Phelps. And went he finally goes to Captain Beatty, it ends with

He put his hand to one side, palm up, for a gift. Montag put the book in it. Without even glancing at the title, Beatty tossed the book into the trash-basket and lit a cigarette.

so presumably it was not the Bible that was given to Beatty. (Although since Mildred ratted him out, he probably knew Montag had a Bible. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Song by the same name (Posted without title)

There should be some mention of Tod Rundgren ‘s Song “ Fahrenheit 451” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.165.84 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Celsius 232.78" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Celsius 232.78 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Celsius 232.78 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Celsius 233" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Celsius 233 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Celsius 233 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 19:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"233°C" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 233°C and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#233°C until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 19:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro

What is "personified" doing in the intro: where books have been personified and outlawed? Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Three months on, and this has not been responded to. I suggest "personified and " be removed. Kdammers (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Finally got around to removing it! Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)