Jump to content

Talk:The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

missed beginning of the broadcast

apparently most people missed the beginning of the broadcast because they change channels (from another VERY popular radioprog) only AFTER the announcement had been made that this is a FICTION story. I also think we should have the exact TIMES of the broadcast 203.184.35.187 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It's already in there. superlusertc 2007 August 29, 02:17 (UTC)

Later studies also indicated that many listeners missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was entirely fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored "cultural" program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase & Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, at the time three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase & Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners presumably began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program "The Battle Over Citizen Kane", Welles knew the schedule of the Chase & Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover's Mill at the 12 minute mark to heighten the audience's confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the exact point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.

Discussion from other War of the Worlds page

The following discussion was moved from Talk:War of the Worlds (radio), the talk page for an article that was merged into this one. See that page's history for further authorship info. - dcljr (talk) 09:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported claim

which was formatted as a news broadcast, on Halloween, and panicked many listeners.
The program created panic among listeners who found it completely convincing.

I haven't found evidence that there was panic. The broadcast was peppered with disclaimers, and anyone who listened for 30 minutes at a stretch would have heard these. I think the "widespread panic" idea is an urban legend. Let's leave out the "panicked listeners" sentence pending verification. Ironically, newspapers and radio stations did get hundreds of calls, seeking to verify what sounded convincing. We should do the same in this case. --Ed Poor

I think the sentence needs to be re-inserted. The panic was well-documented, and is discussed in many print sources. I am not sure why you disagree, as you agree that hundreds of people were spooked by the broadcast, and made phone calls to their newspapers and radio stations in horror at what they thought was an alien invasion. What you are describing is a classic definition of a panicked population. The fact that these peopel should have known better is irrelevant; many people only listended for 20 or 30 minutes, and were scared.

You are right. It should go back in. I did some less hasty research, and found these factoids:
  • a large number of people were deceived by H. G. Wells? fantastic story when depicted over the airwaves. [1]
  • Had the listeners remained more attentive to the drama that was unfolding over the radio, they would have heard the repeated announcement, "You are listening to a CBS presentation of Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre on the Air in an original dramatization of the War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells" (ibid.)

There were isolated instances of panic by careless listeners who missed the often-repeated disclaimer, so the "panicked listeners" thing must indeed go back. My mistake. --Ed Poor

What is more, a story about the panic was on page A1 of the New York Times on November 1, 1938. Someone else made the same claim a while back, so I went to the microfilm. It's there. Maybe I'll scan a copy of the headline for the article. If it's from 1938, it's probably still copyright. What are Wikipedia's rules for that type of thing?

--Superluser 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

eep. Make that October 31, 1938. I'm adding a scan of the headline...as soon as I figure out how.

Newspapers articles of the time depicting a panic do not necessarily prove that there was a real panic. They may as well prove that the newspapers wanted to make a profit by blowing the very isolated panic instances out of proportion. Note that the french Wikepedia article about the radio program states that it was an urban legend (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Guerre_des_mondes#Radio). This may be due to a recent french book about it: "La guerre des mondes a-t-elle eu lieu ? " ("Did the War of the Worlds take place?"), by Pierre Lagrange, showing how there never was a panic of that scale. I think this article should at least mention it. Link to the book: http://www.amazon.fr/guerre-mondes-t-elle-lieu/dp/2221104668 --Onaryc 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There has historically been some silliness about the number of people who were panicking in the streets. Some numbers go as high as 1.2 million (Hadley Cantril in the book The Invasion from Mars). Everything that I've found seems to indicate that that number is fanciful at best.
The BBC ran a news story in 1998 stating that "panic was the exception and not the rule," and quoting Robert Bartholomew on the subject. In Bartholomew's book, Panic Attacks (ISBN-10: 0750937858 ISBN-13: 978-0750937856), page 40 claims that hundreds of thousands of people were frightened by the broadcast. Bartholomew notes that there's only scant anecdotal evidence that many people took to the streets.
There are many reports from different locations of authorities getting hundreds of calls about the show (800 to the Brooklyn PD alone). The number of people who actually took to the streets is much more difficult to determine. The New York Times reported that 30 people went to the Harlem police station to await the evacuation. It also reports that Samuel Tishman saw hundreds of people fleeing the city. I would believe the former report, made by a police officer, but probably not the latter, made by someone who was panicked and fleeing for his life from Martians.
That probably means that--nationwide--there were thousands of people who were panicked enough to contact the authorities, and probably dozens to hundreds who were scared enough to take to the streets. That's a real panic, exaggerated by the media, not an urban legend.
From an encyclopedic perspective, I think it's pretty good as it stands. It mentions the 1.2 million number and mentions that it's probably too high. As to the truth of the matter, see WP:V. It's documented in a reliable source, so that's what we have to go by. Based on this discussion, I've made some edits--Superluser 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic reports "Thousands of people, believing they were under attack by Martians, flooded newspaper offices and radio and police stations with calls, asking how to flee their city or how they should protect themselves from "gas raids." Scores of adults reportedly required medical treatment for shock and hysteria." (source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0617_050617_warworlds.html). Actual panic needs to be mentioned.--TyCamden 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Town name

Could someone check the name of the town "invaded" by the Martians. I believe it was Grovers Mills (with an "s") but I'm not sure enough of my facts to make the change. Eclecticology

The site linked indicates it was "Grovers Mills," so I changed it in the text. Of course, that site could be wrong too. If someone finds the name used is different, they can change it. —Frecklefoot 15:38, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
For the record, if you listen to the actual recording of the broadcast, the name is clearly said as "Grover's Mill" (no s). - dcljr 18:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The location is known as Grover's Mill. No s, as it refers to a nearby mill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.183.2 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TV movie

Back in the 1980s or early 1990s I saw a made for TV movie depiciting Welles radio dramatization and the effect it had on the public. I can't remember the name of the show or know who starred in it. It might have been something like "The Show that Panicked America" or something similar, but I am really not sure. Does anyone else know what the name fo the show was? I'd really like to buy a copy of it (and, of course, mention it in the article). —Frecklefoot 15:38, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean The Panic Broadcast by Howard Koch? - dcljr 18:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was "The Night That Panicked America" in 1975

Another movie

A long time ago, I've seen on one of polish TV channels an english film. It was stylized fora a news program (like CNN) and reported a mysterious meteor impacts around the world. It has bee STRONGLY based on War of the Worlds, especially the last scene from the movie (Where we could seen no vision, only hearing a voice calling Hamburg). It should be on this article, but sadly, I don't remember the name of that film! If someone knows it, please write. 82.139.160.143 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. Sorry for errors, I'm not fluent with english.

Upon listening to the recording

Last night I listened to the recording of the original radio broadcast and I found an inconsistency (or two?) with this article:

These reports grew more frequent and increasingly ominous, ending with a lone reporter talking from the top of a building, above the poison gas, asking if there was anyone out there.

Actually, the "breaking news" part of the broadcast (the first 35 minutes or so in the version I heard) ended with the reporter on top of the building reporting on the Martian attack on New York City. He choked on the poison gas and collapsed to the ground. Then a (military?) radio operator is heard repeatedly asking whether anyone else is on the air. Incidentally, this is the only place in the program where I heard an announcement about it being a radio play (apart from the very beginning and end). Either the others were edited out of the recording for some reason or there really was only one reminder during the course of the program.

The last half (20-25 minutes?) is partly a monologue by Professor Pierson (the noted astronomer) of his diary entries, and partly a dialogue with another survivor. See the script at http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/script.html (it also shows only one break-in reminder that it's a radio play). - dcljr 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge required

Oops, we have duplicate articles. This one needs to be merged with The War of the Worlds (radio). - dcljr 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End of moved discussion

I'm of the opinion that this page belongs back at "The War of the Worlds (radio)," as the program was not originally *intended* to be a hoax. Seth Ilys 15:42, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and came over here to say exactly the same. Toby W 15:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
True. Also The War of the Worlds is a science-fiction novel. Although it could be described as a British novel (or a military novel or a religious novel or a male novel) that would be emphasising a trivial aspect and missing the most significant aspect of the book. -- Derek Ross
Right: 'hoax' is not appropriate. Wetman 15:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Merge required

This needs to be merged with War of the Worlds (radio); see also the discussion at Talk:War of the Worlds (radio). - dcljr 18:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I merged and tidyed, thought that The... was the best location. The talk page there is more extensive so get it here Talk:War of the Worlds (radio) now. MeltBanana 13:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...hi:)-JR

I've taken the liberty of moving the contents of that talk page to here. - dcljr (talk) 09:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't need a merge as much as it needs a move and redirects; merge the talk pages. But it should be at War of the Worlds (radio); here's why. HereToHelp (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Air force?

No more defenses. Our army is... wiped out... artillery, air force, everything wiped out. (about 36m50s if you listen to the MP3) [2]

The United States Air Force was established in 1947, nearly a decade before this show. Did they use that term so early? -- Toytoy 17:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the history of the term air force, but I listened to the program to double check, and that is exactly what the reporter said. MechBrowman 22:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

In the time of this broadcast, people commonly referred to the USAAC as the "air force" 71.35.97.37 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

an actual invasion

I read on [3] that there was an actual invasion that took place before the broadcast, and that Orson Welles was simply trying to "protect the country from mass panic". Is this true? Scorpionman 01:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Just in case you are not joking, that website is based on the WOTW Television show. One episode made the 1938 broadcast a cover up for real aliens in the same way the movie was the real event the show was based on. MechBrowman 15:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew that the site is based on that dumb ol' series, but I think they should clarify that they aren't actually talking about a real event. Scorpionman 00:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I know this is old, and I shouldn't laugh, but I am actually laughing out loud here. Did you ever get that site to mention that the 1938 invasion wasn't real? Optimus Sledge 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Station Identification

I'm suprised that the article does not include mention of the law (I believe) came about after the broadcast: station identification. You know, when the intterupt a football game or talk show to "remind" you what you are listening to. This way, the mass panic the broadcast caused could never happen again. Also: It is mentioned under the section on Sphere, but the broadcast has been widely used to demonstrate human interaction with aliens outside of fiction. Could we add this in? HereToHelp (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Station identification doesn't mean that the station is required to identify the name of the program, just the call sign (i.e. the call letters) and the license city (and, for television stations, the channel number). If an announcer had announced in a pause at the one-hour mark and said, "This is WABC, New York" (or whatever it was), that wouldn't have signified anything about whether the program was truth or fiction. --Metropolitan90 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/war_worlds.html The entire panic was blown out of proportion and considered by Alex Boese to be a bigger hoax than the broadcast itself. The article does nothing to reflect that... --RPGLand2000 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. I wonder why there isn't more about that in the article. There even was a french book about it: "La guerre des mondes a-t-elle eu lieu ? " ("Did the War of the Worlds take place?"), by Pierre Lagrange, showing how there never was a panic of that scale. I think this article should at least mention it.Link to the book: http://www.amazon.fr/guerre-mondes-t-elle-lieu/dp/2221104668 --Onaryc 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
RE: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/war_worlds.html - If you read this link, it does NOT claim "there was no real panic"! It simply states that the panic may have been overblown by the media and the actual number of people fooled was likely a few thousand, and no-where's near the formerly reported 1.2 million. In fact that link has been quoted several times on this discussion page and the wikipedia-article explaining how and why people WERE fooled. Read the account I added at the bottom of this page, "Panic in Hackettstown". It is well documented that people DID panic, though probably not a million.

WKBW remake

The Buffalo NY radiostation remade the radio show around 1967-1973 --Theredstarswl 07:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More arguable influences of the broadcast

Note that The Simpson Halloween Specials also cast aliens in some of the stories. Also, there is an add-on in the DVD version of ID4 movie featuring the news spots showing during the film in a real-life news format.--Manuel Cuevas 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by 87.74.96.120 "Tricking the audience"

I really don't like to revert sincere edits, but this was an exception. The edits are well meaning, and not vandalism, but they are just not up to wikipedia standards. They inject unfounded personal opinion ("anyone can be tricked into believing in anything"), and they use inappropriate punctuation such as multiple exclamation points. Moreover, they were inserted in the middle of a completely wrong section. Mlouns 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain?

Does anyone know if the original brodcast in the Public Domain? Red1530 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a difficult question to answer definitively. It would depend on if they renewed the copyright. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't, so copyright expires (in the US) 95 years after 1938, or 2033. Unless Welles put the copyright under his own name, which would make it 2055. I don't think that he could have done that, and I'm almost positive that the Mercury Theatre and CBS would not permit it.--Superluser 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio Stations Brodcasting War of the Worlds

I added WTBQ to the stations brodcasting War of the Worlds.[4] Red1530 13:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have an update to this? I edited the text to passive tense but I don't know if this broadcast happened, or if it's notable enough to keep included. Pnevares 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words and Sources

The author Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the Columbia Broadcasting System broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". (Hand, 7) While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (Bergen's audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar that followed was anything but minute: within a month, there were about 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact (Hand, 7), while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy." (Hand, 7) That whole paragraph seems to include weasel words. Also There aren't any citations for it, and what does (Hand, 7) mean? Some form of citation? Aetherfukz 01:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Future Events under "Popularity" are now past

I was about to delete the references to future broadcasts that have now in the past, but some of them say they will be repeating events. Should we fix these or just delete them? KenWalker | Talk 05:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

What an embarrassing paragraph. The mentalists have taken control.

Those theories ignore the truth: the aliens DID invade in '38, and again in '53. Thankfully, the Blackwood Project is now working on ways to combat the alien menace. Optimus Sledge 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Germans?

Previous wikipedia text: A study by the Radio Project discovered that most of the people who panicked presumed that Germans — not Martians — had invaded

I just picked up a 1966 reprint of the 1940 Princeton University Press version of Hadley Cantril's report on this. (Cantril was a member of the Project Radio.) Quoting from page 159:
When our interviewers asked, "What major catastrophe could happen to the American people?" three-fourths of those in the frightened group as contrasted to half of those in the non-frightened group answered war or revolution. Evidence of the same feeling is seen in answer to the question, "What sort of a catastrophe did you think it was?" Here the largest single category of response, except that of a Martian invasion, was the belief that the catastrophe actually was an act of war or some foreign attack. Over a fourth of the people who were disturbed or frightened by the broadcast gave such answers.
(My emphasis.) Even if we assume that everybody who believed it was war thought it was the Germans, "over a fourth" doesn't make for a majority.

Jutta 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Briticisms

Recently, Moncrief has removed a lot of the Briticisms from the article (see [5], [6], [7]). These have been reverted without comment by Sennen goroshi (see [8]). While Wells' book was a British phenomenon, Welles' radio drama was an American one, so I can certainly see the merit of Moncrief's edits. Rather than start a revert war over which is correct, I thought I'd ask everyone to discuss it here and come to some sort of consensus first.

There are, however, a few edits that I think are pretty uncontroversial.

  • comemorating->commemorating. I just checked my OED, and comemorating is not there.
  • programme->program. It is an American program, not a British programme. Note, for example, The Office, which is described as a programme for the British series but a program for the US series.
  • rouble->ruble. See Talk:Russian_ruble. This is the way that Wikipedia has decided (for now) to spell ruble.
  • I am unsure if radiostation is a proper name (we certainly wouldn't change "The BBC's Radio Four" to "The BBC's radio station Four"), though from my cursory research it certainly looks like a mistake. superlusertc 2007 August 26, 19:54 (UTC)
Thanks, superluser. It is terribly annoying when people react without knowledge or information, so thank you for watching this one for me. Moncrief 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for other reasons, so I tend to catch everything about this. superlusertc 2007 August 27, 22:05 (UTC)

if the above are actually incorrect, then of course you are right to change them back. sorrySennen goroshi 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy for English variants is WP:ENGVAR. I see that elsewhere, you quoted Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind) as saying, "Do not edit a page simply to "correct" the spelling in either direction." This is a watered down version of the whole policy, which I won't try to summarize here.
The point of the statement in the tutorial is not to say that you should revert any spelling changes. Indeed, my understanding is that the point is to prevent revert wars (which waste space in Wikipedia's databases), and thus that the statement was supposed to stop you from reverting spelling changes as well. But please don't forget that the statement is not the actual policy, which is much longer than what's in the tutorial. superlusertc 2007 August 27, 22:05 (UTC)

Rebroadcasts

The popularity section seems to be more or less just a list of rebroadcasts. This could probably be condensed into a short table with columns for Call Sign and Year(s), which would also draw more attention to the parts of the popularity section that are not simply rebroadcasts.

I'd do it myself, but I'm busy at the moment. superlusertc 2007 November 01, 14:18 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. There seem to be so many stations that re-air the show that I removed all but the most notable. The previous section was pointless. The section is now geared toward re-dramatizations, though some citations would be nice.--Fightingirish 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it might make sense to add all the rebroadcasts back in, partially because people might be interested in knowing where and when they can listen to it and partly because I know that other editors will try to add it back in.
It's a really fine line between useful and WP:NOT#IINFO, and I'd like to see some other opinions. Here's the table:
Area Call Sign and Frequency
Los Angeles, CA KNX 1070 AM
San Francisco, CA KCEA 89.1 FM
Rochester Hills, MI WXOU 88.3 FM
superlusertc 2007 November 04, 23:52 (UTC)
There are so many stations across the country that air the broadcast around Halloween every year. Often, stations that air old time radio shows do, as do many public radio outlets. I could see this becoming a rather ridiculous list, which I despise seeing on articles more than Simpsons references. Plus, they may or may not play it every year. I have seen no citations stating that. Stations that do their own reenactments, on the other hand, are worth noting.--Fightingirish 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I know. I just get the sense that someone will stick them back in, and rather than fighting reverts, this might be a more efficient way to deal with it. Path of least resistance and all that. superlusertc 2007 November 06, 05:08 (UTC)

Below is a copy of a message on the talk page of the user at this IP address. For some strange reason, this person keeps adding a link to a page that not only offers very low quality sound files for the broadcast, but also offers it for sale. Ironic, since the many other links there allow downloading higher quality files of it for free. Here's the message:

I am curious as to why you are so adamant about placing this at the top of the links on The War of the Worlds (radio). Do you own the site? The reason I've been reverting you is because the links are already basically ordered in the order of importance (such as sites devoted to the history of the broadcast). I honestly don't care how many decades the Earthstation1 link has been around. Is it really that much better than the other audio download links? After all, the only audio options offered are 28K RealAudio (which obviously can't sound that great) and TrueSpeech (which is soooo 1996). And the link for the award given that you provided is dead. And to top it off, it is a sale site, offering for purchase what one could easily download for free from many other links. Please state your justification for your placement and inclusion of this link, or I may have to take the whole issue to an admin. Thank you.

What's the consensus of the rest here? Quite frankly, the link is pointless, but I'll let that slide as a compromise. It most certainly doesn't belong at the top.--Fightingirish 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems redundant with all the other links to MP3s of the broadcast. I edited the description to remove the (self?) promotion, but left the link pending consensus on removal. Zeng8r 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Good job!--Fightingirish 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy definitely looks like a spamster. He has moved it back to the top of the list, and added back the original hyped language. I'd be in favor of removing the whole thing at this point, since he just won't cooperate. Mlouns 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I'd also get an admin involved. This behavior seems like grounds for some kind of block or a least a warning - is it? Repeated reverts w/o discussion kinda makes it hard to assume good faith, imo. Zeng8r 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because the guy's a spamster doesn't mean that the link isn't justified. The self-aggrandizing language seems kinda much, but I neither support nor oppose the removal of the link. superlusertc 2007 November 06, 05:05 (UTC)
Who knows? Maybe the guy makes a comfortable living selling low-bandwidth RealAudio and TrueSpeech files of old time radio shows that anyone with half a brain can find in higher quality for free around the internet. Heck, I put a flash streaming audio version to it on my blog, which is much easier to play than these files, but there's no way I'm going to link it in this article. Now, if the user had audio of the remake with the Star Trek actors or the WKBW version, well...
In addition, while I semi-support keeping the link there (provided this person just leave it alone and go away), this link provides very little to the article, compared to the others. The only justification is that it supposedly won some sort of award in 1996 (which was vaguely cited on a dead link to a page written in German, at a time when there wasn't much on the web to begin with) and a completely unreferenced tidbit about being recognized by NASA. Website looks like it hasn't been updated in at least ten years. At least the other sites currently bring much more to the table. I'm curious to find out if the streaming links still work, though I can't stand using RealPlayer.
Finally, in looking at his other edits, I noticed that the only thing this person has done on Wikipedia is add Earthstation1 links. Obvious spammer. And a rather rude one at that. Furthermore, this person has yet to respond with any reasonable justification for these actions on any talk page.
Next time this person strikes with this nonsense, I'm summoning an administrator. Just put a vandalism warning on the userpage.--Fightingirish 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I'm just saying that it sounds like you're taking the link out to punish him. But if it is an appropriate link (and I'm not claiming that it is), it really doesn't punish him, all it does is punish the readers of the article. I'm trying to encourage us all to look at the issue from the perspective of the article, not from the perspective of individual editors. superlusertc 2007 November 06, 05:51 (UTC)
Oh, did you see his latest revisions? He's getting tricksy. I don't usually get involved in abuse disputes, but if somebody wants to report him, now's the time. superlusertc 2007 November 07, 03:25 (UTC)
Done. He's been reported.
And I really don't understand what this guy hopes to accomplish by spamming articles. After what he did to this page, I certainly wouldn't trust him enough to engage in a business transaction with him. --07:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Fightingirish
Uh...just FYI, I think you reported the wrong guy. You reported Special:Contributions/204.185.27.10 (who was also a repeat vandal). The Earthstation dude is Special:Contributions/68.197.92.223. superlusertc 2007 November 08, 03:26 (UTC)
I reported both.--Fightingirish 05:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Earthstation1, continued

As of right now, 68.197.92.223 has gotten a final warning about his linkspamming. We shall see what happens next.

However, there seems to be some sort of difficulty in his links in general. This appears to be a commerce site, and from what I can tell, Wikipedia seems to frown on linking to these (which is why you don't see many Amazon.com links around). Here's what they say:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed [see exception below]. Often these videos have been uploaded in violation of their copyright which adds an additional reason for not linking to them

From what I can tell, while the Earthstation1 site does have a wealth of product available, the sole purpose of the site is to sell stuff. If the ES1 site is allowed, shouldn't a buy link for Amazon.com be allowed too? In addition, after looking through some of the products on that site, the legality of some of the product there (copyright violations?) is unknown. I am not in favor of removing the link because of the boorish behavior of the person who put it there. But I am a bit concerned about the suitability of it being there in the first place. --Fightingirish 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree that, even ignoring the behavior of the user who keeps reinserting it, the link is not appropriate or necessary. The comparison to Amazon is sound, but this is even worse since Amazon will usually have reviews and comments about products for sale. As far as I can tell, that site doesn't have any info at all, just sound files which are available free of charge from at least 3 other external links already listed. It doesn't add anything to the article, so the anti-spam policy applies and it should be deleted, imo. Zeng8r 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting

I'm pretty sure that this is set in 1939, not 1938. For one, Welles gives the date at the start. Second, he says that it's after the "war scare" has ended and Germany is one of the nations to offer help to the US. Kuralyov 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Early on, he does say "the 39th year of the 20th century"; that could be either 1938 or 1939, depending on whether he was counting from 1900 or (correctly) from 1901. I didn't listen all the way through; maybe he gives the date again? The "war scare" is presumably a reference to Germany threatening to go to war for the Czech Sudetenland in the preceding months — "peace for our time" and all that.
—wwoods 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the war scare continued after Germany got the Sudentenland, all the way up to the start of the war itself. Part of the reason the broadcast got the reaction it did was because people were so jittery over the prospect of upcoming war. Kuralyov 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but. People *did* believe that Chamberlain had settled the Czechoslovakian Problem. Film from that time shows the British people giving him three cheers for the Munich Agreement. They thought that they had avoided the war entirely. superlusertc 2007 November 15, 04:33 (UTC)

"Some find this fact hard to accept considering that many radio commercials to this very day start with the phrase, "We interrupt this program"."

radio commercials aren't doing it for dramatic purposes, they really are interrupting the program —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Panic in Hackettstown

As a bit of local history, I can share with you that at least some people were in quite the frenzy over this radio broad-cast. At the time, my Great-Grandfather owned the gas-station in Hackettstown, NJ and was well located on the only real route between NYC and PA. My Gramps was in his early teens then, and never forgot this event.

Apparently they realized it wasn't a real invasion and thoroughly enjoyed the radio-broadcast. However, dozens of customers trying to get into or out of the city (NYC) and in various states of panick passed through to gas-up. Sales were very good that night, at least well enough that Gramps remembered it clearly some 60 years later.

I'm sure the media blew this out of proportion - However it would be equaly fictitious to say "There was no panic"... Just wanted to share. (SGP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.146.14 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

War of the Worlds Final Quote.

At some point in the 1957 movie and perhaps in the radio broadcast the announcer says "Look to the Skies, Keep your eyes on the skies" or something to that effect. Can anyone help with an exact quote? Thank you. 216.142.5.130 (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)DHG

Lead states "allegedly causing panic", but Public reaction section clearly shows multiple instances of panic

We need to reconcile the lead and the Public reaction section. The latter clearly shows multiple reports and instances of panic all across the country. The lead, however, downplays these reports and says it "allegedly causing panic". There's really no "allegedly" about it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Princeton University / Rockefeller Foundation conspiracy theory

An anonymous user has thrice inserted the claim that this program was a secret public psychology experiment funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and carried out by Princeton University. This would be news to Wells and the writers of the show, who restructured the script into a breaking news format just days before it aired because the initial conventional version was deemed too dull. The cited source for the outlandish claim is a book which accurately says that the resulting panic was studied AFTER the fact, NOT that it was all some nefarious set-up by sinister forces or whatnot. I could possibly see mentioning the (baseless) conspiracy theory in the "legacy" subsection as long as the text makes it clear that it's not true, but it cannot be presented as fact. Zeng8r (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_War_of_the_Worlds_(1938_radio_drama)/Archive_1&oldid=1254532732"