Talk:Battlefield Earth (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battlefield Earth (novel) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 7, 2007

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Uncited, questionable information 2 GA on Hold 3 Cherry-picked quotes 4 False claim 5 208.37.56.182 block removals 6 Movie implication 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg 8 Sources citing and/or discussing Mitt Romney's favorite book, Battlefield Earth: 9 The rest of the series

[edit] Uncited, questionable information

The article states: individual Scientologists were reportedly also ordered to buy copies of the book and later that article re-states, According to Miller, Scientologists throughout the United States were instructed to go out and buy at least two or three copies each.[11] and the second instance of Scientologists being "ordered" or "instructed" is cited. However, the first instance of Scientologists being "ordered" is uncited. I frankly don't believe anyone could find, anywhere, an instance of any Scientology organization "ordering" any Scientologist, ever, to "buy a copy of a book". I believe that is utterly false information. Now I realize the article was created to convey a criticsm of Scientology, but nonetheless, it should be cited according to WP:CITE. Specifically a line stating that individual Scientologists were ordered to do something, then who was ordered, who did the ordering, was it in writing or by word of mouth, and any additional information should be placed into the article, citing such an order. Myself, I'm pretty sure that is another of the google group rumors. Terryeo 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather frivolous objection. Basically, you are calling a claim "uncited" even though you yourself are pointing to the citation that supports it just a few sentences away. Or are you claiming that it's possible for "According to Miller, Scientologists throughout the United States were instructed to go out and buy at least two or three copies each" to be true, and "individual Scientologists were reportedly also ordered to buy copies of the book" to be false? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you don't understand what I have said was unsourced. A military commander can order his troops. A Schoolmarm can order her students. A voluntary organization, (such as a group of religious people) however, can not be ordered about. "ordered" is the word and the sentence it is in is uncited. Terryeo 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

instruct: verb (instructed, instructing). ETYMOLOGY: 15c: from Latin instruere, instructum to equip or train.

1)a)to teach or train someone in a subject or skill;

b) (usually instruct someone in something) to give them information about or practical knowledge of it.

2) to direct or order, eg someone to do something.

3) law to give (a lawyer) the facts concerning a case.

4) law to engage (a lawyer) to act in a case.

Yandman 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, a voluntary organization cannot be ordered about? Then I guess we'll have to revise the description of the Church of Scientology to make it clear that it is no way a "voluntary organization" -- if it was, then L. Ron Hubbard would never have issued so many Ethics Orders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

individual Scientologists were reportedly ordered to buy copies of the book. Who reported they were ordered? Ordered by whom?How many were ordered? What reliable publication which we can verify Ordered individual Scientologists to buy copies of the book ? Do you see now how a statement appears which is uncited? The sentence is jarring because it goes against the freedoms espoused by the Church it its various declarations. As we all know, one's participation in religion is (at least in the western world) voluntary. Terryeo 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your objection hinges upon the idea that the word "ordered" can only be interpreted according to one particular narrow definition, which is not the case. Even if it were the case, which it is not, and even if the numerous "Ethics Orders" issued by LRH didn't make the idea that the Church of Scientology has never "ordered" anyone to do anything ludicrous, your idea that no one can be "ordered" to do anything in a "voluntary organization" is quaint and naive. Can that "voluntary organization" exact substantial penalties for disobedience if you do not follow their instruction? Then it is not an instruction, but an order. If you are told to get your stats up or be assigned to the RPF, it's an order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My statement is, the line is not cited, there is no reference which says that was ever published by a reliable source. Whereas WP:V says information of that nature (or any information in an article) should come from a previously published, reliable source. Terryeo 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo's comments about a "voluntary organisation" are somewhat fanciful - the CoS may be voluntary but adherence to its rules and instructions certainly isn't. (The same would be true for just about any workplace.) Note Bent Corydon's cited statement in the article: "We were ordered to sell 1000 copies of Hubbard's recently released science-fiction book Battlefield Earth "before Thursday" or I would be kicked out as mission holder." This testifies to actual coercion being used. -- ChrisO 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing presently voluntary about the cofs is joining it. Even auditing and training now are "regged" for using very coercive tactics. It has become a rather fascist organization. --Fahrenheit451 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It just amazes me how very different critics of the Church of Scientology view organizational actions than the people who gain from the Church's actions, view the Church's actions. Terryeo 07:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm told that those who gain from the activities of the Cosa Nostra also have a different view of it from the rest of the world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall the Battlefield Earth campaign quite well. I would not use the word "ordered". "Instructed" or "cajoled" or "strongly urged" would be accurate as a description for the tactics that were used to sell that series. Int management made use of cofs public "opinion leaders" to push this campaign.I ignored that insane crap and those who promoted it. --Fahrenheit451 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the wording to "urged" per your suggestion. I think it's sufficiently loose to blur the distinction between a request and an order, as it covers both possibilities. -- ChrisO 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:The word "Psychlo" is revealed to have originally meant "mental patient" in the alien language. Well in my copy Psychlo is stated to mean "brain,' according to some old dictionaries. Another form of the word also means 'property of"

Also I dont think Soth is a "supporting" character, I dont know what else to refer to him as, but he only has a very very small part right at the end. And again "his mother who was a member of a resistance group, a so-called "church," the actaul line in the book is "I used to think it was because my mother was a member of an underground church group. They believed that sentient creatures had souls and they felt very strongly about it.", which if you see has no reference to "Resistance group". It was Kers "Adoptive Father" who was in a resistance group. I dont know if Scientology thinks that animals have souls, but that is what Soth is stating his Mother belived YOurs H&K

[edit] GA on Hold

This article is up for Good Article candidacy; I am putting it on hold for the moment. This is a pretty high-quality article which I think is close to GA status. In particular, I'm impressed by the total lack of spelling mistakes and the adherence to WP:MOS. Here are some things I'd like to see before finalizing it as a GA:

• The lead section needs expansion per WP:LEAD. It needs to be a summary of the article and can be several paragraphs long.
• The book cover needs a detailed Fair use rationale on its summary page. It should probably also be shrunk down to at most 70% of what it is now.
• The plot summary is a little dramatic, and feels a little encyclopedia-inappropriate. Please give this a once-over to make it more explanatory than mood-catching.
• Good use of citations for the most part; the only section that definitely lacks them is the 'Publishing history' bit, which shouldn't be too hard to take care of.
• Use more wikilinks in the "Scientology-related themes" section to the scientology articles. This will give readers a chance to learn more, and will make that section much more credible. Any external sources relating to thematic elements would help as well, but the wikilinking will help. A good example of what I mean is the well-placed link to Space opera in Scientology doctrine.

Take care of these things and you're well on the way to GA status. --Masamage ♫ 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One week later, most of these have not been addressed (good job with the Scientology section, though). Because some parts of the article seem to be kind of in flux, I'll fail it for now so that it can get a fresh perspective when renominated; I hope that happens soon, because a lot of nice work has been done. Just make sure to tackle those other bullet points, especially the image use. Good luck! --Masamage ♫ 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry-picked quotes

As suspected, the recently added quotes of praise turned out to be cited to promotional sales text or to bare blurbs on battlefieldearth.com . I've removed the most blatant quote -- you can hardly say that the description of a book given by a bookstore that's trying to get you to buy the book is a "critical review". As for the rest, doesn't this fall under the definition of "cherry-picking quotes", the cherry-picking done by the website? I mean, certainly if Robert Heinlein had said "A terrific story but totally ruined by Hubbard's awful style" the website is not going to tell us anything but the "a terrific story" part and therefore it is not going to tell us what Heinlein's actual opinion of the book was. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The practice of blurbing is more of a favor to other writers than a legitimate critical response. I'm tempted to delete all of the blurbing. Anyone opposed? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the opinions of his contemporaries are in fact legitimate critical commmentary. What Bob Heinlein thought about a Science fiction book is a lot more relevant than what the editors of the Economist think. I mean what the heck do the editors of the Economist know about Science Fiction? Why would they even comment at all? I say leave the blurbs. Slightlyright 06:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Economist can't have a legitimate book review staff (that is, ahem, done by book reviewers not editors). By the way, all of the reviews in the section (other than Mitt Romney) are by contemporaries of Hubbard so pointing to Heinlein as having more credibility because he was a contemporary is a bit of a red herring. Naturally, including the opinions of other writers can certainly be appropriate and brings forth multiple perspectives but blurbing is hardly a representation of one's opinion.

As a section titled critical response, there is the presentation of some positive reviews and some negative. The blurbs just don't fit.

Also, as Antaeus Feldspar pointed out, there's heavy use of ellipses in these quotes. I'd say that a promotional website is not a reliable source. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False claim

.. became the first science fiction novel to ever become a New York Times bestseller where it remained for 34 weeks between the hard cover and mass market paperback editions and has total sales to date of over 8,000,000 copies.

It certainly wasn't the first science-fiction book on the NYT lists, paperback or hardcover, even in the year it was released. "This has been a high-flying summer for science fiction and fantasy. Seven novels of that literary genre enjoyed runs on our hard-cover and paperback best-seller lists." September 5, 1982 As well, the 8,000,000 sales figure is unsourced. AndroidCat 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the editor who added that has also said he is president and publisher of Galaxy Press, which may cause problems with our policies on conflicts of interest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange. There's no such incorporation as Galaxy Press. Is he saying that he's the president of Author Services Inc.? AndroidCat 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 208.37.56.182 block removals

Could the editor from 208.37.56.182 cease making mass block removals of text without discussion? Just because you're connecting from the Author Services Inc./Galaxy Press IP block, you don't have special rights and you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. AndroidCat 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie implication

Would it be encycolpaedic to mention that fans of the book also hated the film? The way it's stated seems to imply that the movie being so terrible means the book was as well. 66.57.225.50 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg

Image:Battlefield earth book cover.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 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources citing and/or discussing Mitt Romney's favorite book, Battlefield Earth:

Here are some additional sources:

Listed here, they can be later worked into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The rest of the series

Wasn't this the first of a series of ten books? This is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I remember reading this is as a teenager and getting through the first 3 or 4 of them before I decided it was getting repetitive. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Battlefield Earth is a stand-alone novel. Hubbard wrote a 10-volume work that started with "The Invader's Plan." Schoop (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mission Earth (novel). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)