Talk:Fahrenheit 451

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarisse's age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking to fireman? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)
thread_title:  Concerning Recent Edit (March 1) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Burned Down -> Burned Out 

message: 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)
replies: text: "... 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Not changing it on main page because not sure but... 

message: 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)
replies: text: A Google scholar search turns up a number of sources that seem to fit the bill: . 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)

text: This PDF file from Cuesta College gives a pretty good listing. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me generate a list of scholarly articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  24th century in fiction? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoken Word Grammy nominee? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Year of the computer game 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Analysis section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "...in the future after the year ____" 

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

text: Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: 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)
replies: text: . 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some Hazards of Hasty Conclusions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Equilibrium Listed as an Adaptation 

message: http://geektimes.ru/post/252682/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.132.181.213 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fahrenheit 451 now banned in Russia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested item to add 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celsius 232.77777778 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  How to say "451" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Production" section for potential film article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "He stated his motivation for writing the book in more general terms. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  my unending battle against irony deficiency 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *2083, he died in 2012, not 2022 An Inhumane person (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain - when? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I wonder what Bradbury would have made of our cancel culture today?TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi book burning as inspirational source 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Bible or not? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Song by the same name {{resize|60%|({{Abbr|Posted without title|Title added by User:Askarion on December 4, 2023}})}}

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Celsius 232.78" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Celsius 233" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "233°C" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: What is "personified" doing in the intro: where books have been personified and outlawed? Chuunen Baka  (talk  • contribs) 14:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Three months on, and this has not been responded to.  I suggest "personified and " be removed. Kdammers (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally got around to removing it! Chuunen Baka  (talk  • contribs) 12:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro