Talk:The Marching Morons

message: suggest folding this into the kornbluth article ka1iban 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a couple of additions to this article; I think it would be better to re-create it as a stub after the copy-vio period ended. squell 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno...looking at the history, it doesn't seem like it was anything 'til someone lifted it from the source.  If someone has read the story and wants to rewrite it, great, but other wise, I'd say fold into into the author article that has a blurb about the story already...ka1iban 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rewriting this article. John DiMatteo
The article has been rewritten. It is on the The Marching Morons/Temp page. John DiMatteo 05:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Original deleted, temp moved over. Chick Bowen 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: Three results in a google for the story name list the year of publication as 1951, not 1957. What's the source on the '57 date? Any objections to changing it?
:Nope, Be Bold. squell 12:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Publication

message: I've been wondering for some 40 years whether this phrase is a Freudian slip, or a deliberate pun on "ambush".  Does anyone know? 217.171.129.71 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The morons would believe that bushes produced ham, if they believed in the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Edison (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ham bushes 

message: The article suggest that the elites place him in a spaceship to die because they hate everyone from the pass, which is grossly innacurrate. Everythinkg in the story suggest that it is Barlow'sdespotic and megalomaniac behavour that makes his assistants betray him. The author in no way or shape implies that they do it as a revenge for creating The Problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.100.79.189 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barlow's end 

message: Isn't the bit about the Time Machine backwards? Wansn't it the Morlocks
who evolved from the working class, while the eloi evolved from the idle rich?
Also:Wasn't that about social class, not intelligence?
66.32.25.201 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a reference to Idiocracy.  I don't recall the thing in Robocop.--GwydionM (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted you as you didn't provide a source and we cannot publish original research. DonIago (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  If you'd bothered to check the Wiki entry for the film, it mentions the link.  Either both are invalid, or neither are.--GwydionM (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding sources. However, TVTropes and IMDb aren't reliable sources, per WP:SPS and WP:RS/IMDb, respectively. If those are the only sources used in the article for the film then that's a problem as well. DonIago (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  IMDb is more reliable than the Wikipedia.  But it seems that the volunteers who run the show have decided it isn't.  Not my first encounter with entrenched prejudice, so I give up. You can congratulate yourself on having suppressed something that istrue. and also ignoring the awkward fact that the film entry makes the link--GwydionM (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the film mentions it and includes higher quality sources, you could certainly copy those sources here. Otherwise, I appreciate your frustration, but I don't have much to say when people try to guilt-trip me for pointing out valid concerns with their edits, and I have no idea what to say when someone claims IMDb is more reliable than Wikipedia. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: I'm replacing the line "the story predates the development of hormonal contraception", which had been deleted as irrelevant.  I believe it is relevant because the only forms of contraception Kornbluth would have been familiar with (abstinence and various barrier methods) require active decision.  Hormonal or chemical contraception could possibly be administered by some passive-use method to large segments of the population, but it did not occur to those dealing with PoProb because Kornbluth himself had never imagined such a thing. Cactus Wren (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hormonal contraception" 

message: I know that Kornbluth didn't have access to the technology we have nowadays, therefore his fact check is pretty lousy. The "cheery postcards" bit is as phony as the human skin lampshades that still remain to be found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0D:36F:7F00:44EB:C282:4978:AD0D (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-war propaganda 

message: Made an edit today and hit enter by mistake before I could replace the default reason. It was because the previous editor removed a phrase only because they didn't understand what it meant, instead of googling to learn a new idiom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.69.56 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiom edit 

message: Does not the movie Idiocracy borrow heavy inspiration from this? Additionally I saw a note that the character from Robocop who says "I'd buy that for a dollar!" was inspired by this tale. Seems like a section on impacts in popular culture could be warranted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by STalbot93 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a reference to Idiocracy.  I don't recall the thing in Robocop.--GwydionM (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted you as you didn't provide a source and we cannot publish original research. DonIago (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  If you'd bothered to check the Wiki entry for the film, it mentions the link.  Either both are invalid, or neither are.--GwydionM (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding sources. However, TVTropes and IMDb aren't reliable sources, per WP:SPS and WP:RS/IMDb, respectively. If those are the only sources used in the article for the film then that's a problem as well. DonIago (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  IMDb is more reliable than the Wikipedia.  But it seems that the volunteers who run the show have decided it isn't.  Not my first encounter with entrenched prejudice, so I give up. You can congratulate yourself on having suppressed something that istrue. and also ignoring the awkward fact that the film entry makes the link--GwydionM (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the film mentions it and includes higher quality sources, you could certainly copy those sources here. Otherwise, I appreciate your frustration, but I don't have much to say when people try to guilt-trip me for pointing out valid concerns with their edits, and I have no idea what to say when someone claims IMDb is more reliable than Wikipedia. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacts in Popular Culture