Talk:The Gernsback Continuum

Image:Tomorrow calling.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 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow Calling on YouTube is published by a user named Tim Leandro. Supposing he is the real director of Tomorrow Calling, it would be OK to link to the short film in Youtube, wouldn't it? Can we confirm that the Youtube video is not a copyright violation? --Error (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In editing the lead today, the aim was to ensure that the content appearing in the lead was based in published sources, and then to begin to ensure that the lead adequately summarised the article's main body. As such, a fair bit of material was duplicated, and placed into the article (because, before today, it appeared only in the lead).

Note, this process is not complete—the reference to Gibson's Wired magazine piece, Disneyland with the Death Penalty—while the allusion to it is sourced, the referenced article is not, in the main body or anywhere here. Moreover, the sentence assigning the "Gernsback" of the title as an allusion to Hugo Gernsback, pioneer pulp magazine editor of the early 20th century, is content still unique to the lead, and is likewise unsourced anywhere in the article. [With some further work in the main body, this can be done from the citations to Elhefnawy and Bredehoft, if not others.]

Finally, we dispute the appearance of the citation to Bowler in the lead—a primary source bit of scholarship from the journal Theory and Society—as a summary of the broad, general meaning of the story. It may well be, but citing a primary research source once and only in the lead is not the way to establish a story's broadly agreed upon meaning in the secondary and tertiary literatures. (!) If the conclusion is valid, broaden this to include a couple of non-primary citations drawing the same conclusion, and leave Bowler in for flavour. BUT, we can't have a primary source in the lead, and in the lead only, instead of the lead's providing a summary of the same broader discussion (which currently does not appear in the article).

This is our view, as a former academic, and logging editor here of long standing. Cheers. 98.223.85.159 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)