Talk:Brave New World

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brave New World article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years

	Brave New World was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2005 Good article nominee Listed August 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 8, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Sci-fi Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Low-importance). Science Fiction Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Futures studies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by The Chronicle of Higher Education on October 27, 2006. (Link to review) Comments: Grade: B- For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

I've just worked around a broken link to Germline_genome_editing, a page that has been deleted. I don't see the reasoning behind the deletion, since potentially the topic is of interest, but I'll leave it to somebody more experienced in Wikipedia politics to do the right thing. Groogle (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current section on "Common Misunderstandings" seems to be, in my view, sort of biased and unnecessary. The entire section consists of the opinions of one geneticist about how human genetic enhancement is fine and good and Huxley's dystopia actually condones it. We can disagree on the validity of the reading So (the aforementioned geneticist "debunking" the interpretation of the novel) puts forward, that there is no genetic enhancement in Brave New World (I would argue there is, the "Alphas" are all explicitly described as especially tall, muscular, and intelligent, the Betas are described as relatively normal people, etc), but it seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on the book. It undermines the neutrality of the article and makes it look like part of the article was written by someone who is especially interested in promoting human genetic enhancement.

In my view, this seems to be a counterargument to an interpretation of the novel which has not been given any place in the article. At best, there should be a section entitled something like "Interpretation," in which some common interpretations and criticisms of them would be discussed, much like the Interpretation section for The Metamorphosis. Cahmad25 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the ”The world state and fordism” section the article states ”with the calendar beginning in AD 1908, the year in which Ford’s first model T rolled of his assembly line” this is incorrect as the model T was not produces using the assembly line technique until 1914. It should maybe be something like ”the year in which Ford introduced his model T” 2A02:AA1:115F:2DE6:312C:9F4F:E3:DB47 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been something like 500 years and a deliberate cultural annihilation between our time and that depicted in BNW. The only information that survives in their time about Ford is that he produced the Model T in 1908, and that he originated the production line. The information that has come down to them is so garbled that, under certain circumstances, "Our Ford" delivers his pronouncements through the name "Our Freud". And you're arguing over which year he inaugurated the production line process?

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article is not written from an ”in book” perspective, it is omniscient and should therefore be factually correct. 94.191.137.52 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a correction is needed it would be to include a statement that this isn't the actual year in "real life" or that (if this is true and can be verified) the author chose the "wrong" date deliberately. You can't, however, use a different date than the book does without explanation. MarcGarver (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Popé is mentioned in the bit about Linda's life on the Savage Reservation, as having supplied Shakespeare's works to John, and that's quite true, but but the article has not previously explained who Popé is. 109.146.110.20 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very first reference poorly formatted in ALL CAPS looks very strange! Is it a valid reference?

Look here: and to the hidden comment inserted just after it:

| pub_date = 4 February 1932<ref.>"CABELL PUTS STYLE ABOVE IDEA IN a BOOK; Author Confesses He Cannot Define Style, but Calls It 'Very Nearly Most Important.' NEVER AWAITS INSPIRATION in Interview He Recalls Newspaper Days at $25 a Week and Says Recognition Came Slowly". The New York Times.</ref>

<-- What is that for a non-sensical or junk reference??? I am highly sceptical about the validity of such a rude reference. Is it the consequence of a possible vandalism on this page? I was about to correctly format this reference from ALL CAPS to Sentence or Title Case, but I prefer to leave it as is, well visible and in evidence, so it can be deleted if it was vandalism, or corrected if it corresponds to a true reference. The source is not traceable as it is a dead link. -->

| image = BraveNewWorld FirstEdition.jpg

Thank you for deleting it, correcting it, or properly formatting it WITHOUT ALL CAPS. Shinkolobwe (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright records says it was published in New York on January 21, 1932 ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem in including other dates they just need to be specific as to what they are. At the moment the article says it was first published in the UK. New York, obviously, isn't in the UK so the publication date there may be less relevant unless you can demonstrate it was published in the UK the same time as NY, or that NY was first. At the moment none of the references specifically state first publication place or date. MarcGarver (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]