Talk:Norsefire

message: "In the film, Norsefire had staged a plan that would sweep them into full control of the nation; after they had a firm grip on Parliament, they conducted horrific medical experiments on prisoners in the detention centers to perfect a deadly virus (as well as the cure for it) which they then used to stage a terrorist attack by foreign religious extremists."
This isn't logical because they would have to be already in power in order to be able to conduct those experiments on the prisoners. They came to power through elections because they promised law and order and security. The detention centres did not exist before Norsefire gained power. Therefore it is logically impossible for Norsefire to have first tested the biological weapon (the virus) on political prisoners and then gained power. Who had established these concentration camps ("detention centres") before the fascists took over? Is it really suggested in the film that a Labour/Conservative government established those camps? This isn't plausible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.174.60 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really relevant to improving the article, so it's really off-topic for this talk page, but my understanding (and I'm a lot more familiar with the comic) is that they had control of Parliament (presumably through by-elections, etc). They could then influence the government.  Incidentally, the UK has detention centres right now - conditions in them are constantly being criticised, but fortunately no one in Parliament has yet suggested biological experimentation on refugees (sorry, asylum seekers). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tests on prisoners in detention centres

message: The film briefly mentions that Adam Sutler was the Secretary of Defense before Norsefire was elected to Parliament. I suppose this explains how he gained so much political backing from the people, as his military and decisions helped to "calm the chaos".
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.32 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secretary of Defense

message: It is my belif that the comic's ideas should be more important than the films Slayerx675 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They both use the Cross of Lorraine? --Foot Dragoon 00:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic And Film 

message: "They began to sink their influence into the Church of England, promoting and demoting members of the clergy as they saw fit."
- The British Prime Minister already has some say over bishops. --MacRusgail 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CoE

message: It's probably worth pointing out that the Norsefire flag shown on this article is sideways when compared to every version of it (both in flag and symbol) in the film, and the concept art from V for Vendetta, from Script to Film --Jittery Joe 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flag 

message: I'm removing this template from all its articles:
Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V for Vendetta Template 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:V for Vendetta}}]] 

message: :Image:Warrior19.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Warrior19.jpg

message: :Image:Fbnfvv.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fbnfvv.png

message: Classifying this regime as "Far Right" is bias coming from the Left. Fascism is not essentially different from the other forms of Statism that are seen as Left-Wing: Socialism and Communism. They are all governments that oppress their citizens in the name of some greater good.
The common misconception that fuels the idea that Fascism is "Far Right" is a quote from Mussolini that states, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Under Fascism, a "Corporation" was not the limited liability companies that we know in the USA today.
"Under fascist corporatism, sectors of the economy were divided into corporate groups, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to split the difference between socialism and laissez faire capitalism, letting the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production."
"The bottom line is that corporate groups meant classes of people in the economy, which were allegedly represented through appointments to the Council. The system was not about welfare for private companies, but rather about totalitarian central planning of the whole economy through legislation and regulation. Corporatism meant formally “incorporating” divergent interests under the state, which would resolve their differences through regulatory mechanisms."
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/
Amaroq64 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Far Right" 

message: Below information was tagged for needing sources or original research long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material / original research 

message: I've never read the comics, but in the first few minutes of the movie a propaganda poster talks about faith and the chancellor says America was ruined because of "godlessness". Would this not suggest State Anglicanism or something like that? Shouldn't State/National/Political Anglicanism be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: In the book, while this subject goes unmentioned in the film. But if Scotland is independent, there is technically no UK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.251 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland is independent...