Talk:On the Beach (novel)

message: In case anyone's wondering (and I'll bet you aren't, but oh well), I placed the "Novels Infobox" over the "Films Infobox" simply because the novel appeared first. Given the apparent differences between the novel and the film(s), they should get seperate articles, IMHO. I'd consider splitting them myself, except I've neither read the novel nor seen the film. The book is on my to-read list, at least... -- Antepenultimate 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox placement

message: :Image:OnTheBeach(1stEd).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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:OnTheBeach(1stEd).jpg

message: I have now located two Pan covers one from 1966 and the other from 1970. What they show is the slow change of emphasis from people on the first edition cover to the submarine as she seems to have become a character in her own right. As I locate other covers I will add them to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Later Covers

message: The quote from the T S Eliot poem should read "We grope together" and not "We group together". I haven't the knowledge to make the change on the page.
Dantes Warden (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made the correction. I do not have my physical copy to check the poem, but several online versions of the poem agree that it is "grope" rather than "group." Antepenultimate (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliot quote 

message: The last paragraph of the "Reception" Section has nothing to do with the "reception" of the novel. 
The paragraph is a critical analysis--a product of Original Research. The critique concerns the accuracy of the science contained in the fiction novel which was written in 1957. The novel is a science fiction story. The "fictional" science about the impact of a global nuclear war is criticized and "debunked" using 21st-century knowledge. This content is not appropriate.
Wikipedia policy concerning Wikipedia article content is no original research. The last paragraph of the "Reception" section needs to be deleted.
I post here prior to deleting the paragraph. Does anyone disagree?
Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 23:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the para is inappropriate as  "reception" relates to reactions to it at the time of publication. Perhaps the sentences could be retained under the heading of criticism, but since it is a work of fiction, it's unclear that how the world ends has to conform to someone else's theories, nor be an exhortation to become a prepper. The book's premise is that everyone will die and everyone knows this and looks at how they respond to that situation. Kerry (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the final paragraph (referring to Creston Kearny's deservedly harsh criticism of the book) is absolutely worth including in the article. (Though perhaps not under the Reception section, due to his own book being published around 2 decades later.) A widely read author calling into question the premise of a story is one thing, but the accusation that On The Beach has the capacity to cause widespread fatalistic lack of precaution in the general populace is worth noting. As is, the article does not allude to the book as Science fiction until the Reception section; until this point, it could be interpreted as speculative fiction, or alternative history. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Original Research in the "Reception" section needs to be deleted