Talk:Starship Troopers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Starship Troopers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2006.
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments.
Novels
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Archived Discussions

[edit] Major Overhaul

OK, so I see in my absence this article has *sigh* once again grown bloated and unmanageable. It's twice the maximum size for an entry and there are several good chunks of it that are little more than either peacock terms, weasel words and other Do Not's for Wikipedia. Here is what I propose (translation: here is what I intend to do unless someone seriously objects):

  • Move this article to "Starship Troopers (book)" and use the ST page to list all the adaptations, games, etc.
  • Create new articles wherever possible, especially for the characters.
  • Move everything that does not involve the novel to other entries. (Again, trying to get this article down to a manageable size)
  • Cut everything that isn't sourced. There are several paragraphs here that are nothing more than shills for other entries or debates between editors.

Palm_Dogg 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The Book is the primary topic, IMO and should stay at the main name. "adaptations, games, etc." should be in a spun-off article, if a spin-off is needed. DES (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I know what you mean; my thinking is that Starship Troopers (film) is at least -- if not more -- widely known than the book and that should be acknowledged. The article on Starship Troopers can focus on both the book and the movie, as well as all the other spin-offs, while the book article can focus on just that. Plus, I think a lot of people are editing this page to get attention for their views on Starship Troopers, not to make it a better page. Moving the book to a new page might help deflect some of this unwanted attention. Palm_Dogg 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You could try that, but I think that any page that discusses both the book and the film will ahve the same problem. I also think that the film's noteriety is already fading, while the book continues to sell and be read. I advise splitting all the film content into Starship Troopers (film). DES (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I also think tha tthe list of characters, possibly shortened a bit, should stay with the rest of the book content. IMO it doesn't really make a good article on its own. DES (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The list can stay, but the detailed descriptions shouldn't. Listen, if you can tell me a way to cut this page down to half its size, I'm all ears. I'm just focusing on the more obvious ways. Palm_Dogg 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Start by drastically cutting the plot summery, IMO. DES (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The lists of "locations" and "equipment" IMO add nothing at all and could be simply deleted. DES (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Starship Troopers" means primarily the book. If there's another article, besides the film, then make a Starship Troopers (disambiguation) page and put an {{otheruses}} dablink at the top of this article. --Trovatore 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've finished my preliminary clean-up. I left the characters here, even though I think just listing them would be sufficient for this article. Is there anything anyone else wants to say, or is my work finished...for now? :) Palm_Dogg 09:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the the character list is already duplicated in a separate article (List of characters in Starship Troopers), it can probably be struck completely and a {{further}} tag entered at the beginning of the plot summary section linking to the spin-off article, as the character descriptions really are character specific plot summary paragraphs. Lists really should be in separate "List of ________" articles anyways and not in the main body of the article. - Vedexent (talk) - 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's "already" duplicated in that article created yesterday, but in any case I agree with splitting off the list. --Noren 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the list makes a good separate articel, and it should remain here, possibly edited down. it really offers no value on its own, and even spin-off articels should be complete in themselves. I would delete the spun-off copy. DES (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning the plot summary

Perhaps aside discussion of the plot should be eliminated as well, and the plot summary limited to descriptions of the plot. I'm thinking mostly of sections like the one that start:

Many readers have felt that Dubois serves as a stand-in for Heinlein throughout the novel...
- Vedexent (talk) - 12:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR issues

Some of the analysis really needs to be better sourced, IMO for exaple the paragraph:

During Operation Royalty, the Mobile Infantry occupy the surface of Planet P and have to blast the Arachnids out of their well-prepared underground bunkers, which is reminiscent of Japanese island fortifications during the Pacific War. Following the losses in the ill-conceived and executed First Battle of Klendathu, the Terran Federation is reduced to making hit-and-run raids on isolated Arachnid and Skinny bases, similar to the U.S. Navy's situation between Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. The loss of Rico's ship, Valley Forge, during the Klendathu drop may have been inspired by the loss of one of Heinlein's former ships, USS Lexington, which was sunk by the Japanese in 1942.

This needs to cite a source or sources that have made the comparison between ST and the WW@ pacific theatre. I think the statements are quite plausible myself, i m,ight wright soemthign like this if I were doign a signed reveiw/analysis of ST. But this isn't a signed analysis, ist should make statements of opnion (such as "reminiscent of") without sourcing them. Mych the same could be said of "The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires individual sacrifice." This is probably true, but is a statement of evaluation, and should IMO be sourced, perhaps to Heinlein in Dimension or a similar source. Other statements, like "The concept of Mobile Infantry, whose basic element is the trooper, highly trained, encased in an armored space-suit, and delivered to the area of operations in a disposable re-entry pod, was unprecedented in literature, both military and otherwise." IMO also need a source citation. DES (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I think the section on Military themes is generally weak, missing many direct statements about military themes, military theory, and direct references to military history, and instead attempt to draw unproven (and probably unprovable) parallels between the events of the novel, and military history that Heinlein would have experienced, or most likely would have strong views on. Perhaps this should be restricted to actual statement/inferences that can be backed up in the novel, or in publications about the novel. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Vedexent, and I think I was the one who put those in originally. With the Lexington, could it be reworded or added to the Heinlein background, like: "his own unit was devastated and its transport ship destroyed (much like Heinlein's old ship, the Lexington, was in 1942)"? Axe the others. Palm_Dogg 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I can buy the "reduced to making hit-and-run raids on isolated Arachnid and Skinny bases, similar to the U.S. Navy's situation [in early 1942]" as a useful analogy, but I don't see any resemblance to the fate of the Lexington — she didn't collide with another Navy ship, and she wasn't a troop transport anyway.
—wwoods 07:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that while the similarity to WW2 may be accurate (I think it is) and may well have been in RAH's mind (it seems likely to me) this is the kind of analysis that we should not do, only report on where someone else has citably done. DES (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other authors of Milsf

Of the 11 authors listed at Military science fiction as "defining the genre" at least 6 have sereved in the military, although in most cases only for a few years. these authors are:

Defining authors of the genre include:

Perhaps these form a better basis for comparison. Haldeman wrote only one major MilSF work, snd Card only one book, of which only one plot thread was MilSf, less than half of the books' wordage, IIRC. DES (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think was going for notability here. The Forever War is arguably a close second to Starship Troopers for notability (do the two sequels to The Forever War fall outside of the genre? I haven't read them yet) - and a marked contrast in style and message. If personally asked to list 3 "Military Science fiction" novels I would have named Starship Troopers, The Forever War, and Hammer's Slammers. However, if you think other novels/authors are more notable/appropriate, feel free to change the listed examples :) - Vedexent (talk) - 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For the reader who is not an SF fan you may be right. If you asked an SF fan to list "notable examples of MilSF", you would probaly get the Hammer's Slammers series (which is not a novel, BTW), Honor Harrington, The Mercanary (later incorporated into Falkenberg's Legion) and possibly Downbelow Station or an early work by Lois McMaster Bujold. Any way,my main point is that a significant fraction of the authors know for writing MilSf or who significantly contributed to the development of the sub-genre had military experience, although usually not a life-long "career" in the military. DES (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I would expect Starship Troopers would be mentioned more commonly than any of those examples, as well as (since medium was unspecified) Babylon 5 by J. Michael Straczynski (no military service) which is in my opinion milSF, as well as other less military SF works such as Aliens and Battlestar Galactica. I'd also agree with Vexedent that The Forever War would feature in many lists. Also, where's Gordon R. Dickson (served in Army in WWII) in this list? --

Noren 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry? Did he have military service? I know he was a cop at one point SGGH speak! 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

* http://www.marines.mil/almars/almar2000.nsf/0/91c8a9b3b9a2b59785256a55005e129d?OpenDocument

    • In Starship Troopers on 2007-06-03 14:34:20, Socket Error: (10060, 'Operation timed out')
    • In Starship Troopers on 2007-06-10 16:51:31, Socket Error: (10060, 'Operation timed out')

--Stwalkerbot 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've stricken out the one that works for me Imasleepviking 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two other military ideas

In the book there were two military ideas I thought were interesting (i.e. different from any actual military, I think):

  • You can't become an officer except by starting as a normal enlistee, then non-com.
  • You can't become a flag officer (general or admiral) except by serving in both the Army and the Navy - becoming an officer in one, then going back to boot camp and working back up to officer in the other.

Does anyone else think these are significant enough to add to the article? Sbowers3 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be a good idea. Not very much articles (especialy the one commissioned officer) deal with the idea that you should a vet before becoming an officer. The only army who's approching that way is the Swiss Army and even we don't have enough information about it nor if any military doctrine encompassed that. And beside, sorry for my poor english; it's not my first language.(­Vealen 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

I discovered recently, by reading a book about the history of the SS, that one of the VT-SS regiment (Germanica) used to have its officers have to spend two years as private before officer candidate school. But I don't think that Heinlein knew that at the time he wrote Starship Troopers because documents of the archives of the Third Reich were just beginning to be release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vealen (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be interesting, and even true; but it's still Original Research. Sorry, gang. (It could make a good fanzine article, though.) --Orange Mike 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for their inclusion but they do fit into the section Military innovations. They aren't OR - they are in the book - and the article mentions some other military ideas from the book. Sbowers3 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Comments

I think it's a great book. (We are allowed to use the discussion page for things non-Wiki related, right?). --Secruss 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory Talk pages are supposed to be used for discussions about how to improve the article, not for discussion about the subject itself. But I don't think anyone will mind. :) And yes, it is a great book. The movie, though, was terrible - omitting everything that made the book great. Sbowers3 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of fascism section

The reference to Robert Peterson's Space.com article is called after the following phrase: "but [movie director] Verhoeven admits that he never finished reading the actual book.[49]" But, that linked article never mentions whether Verhoeven ever finished the book.

The linked article is a nice critique of the adaptation, but it should not be referenced to imply that Verhoeven never finished the book. If someone has a reference for that factoid, it should be added. Otherwise, the comment about the director should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.16.170 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Starship Troopers (film) page mentions that this factoid appears on the DVD commentary. I haven't seen that, so I cannot confirm, but I think that would be a reasonable cite. I don't know why the current cite was placed where it was. --Noren (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an important section so I added some extra comment re origins of Terran Federation compared to Nazi Germany. If you think this is unnecessary, please let me know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.63.8 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it is important or not. The question is whether it is sourced or not. Everything in the encyclopedia should be verifiable by reference to reliable sources or can be removed. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Troopers: Terran Ascendancy

Seeing as this ought to be the main hub article for the starship troopers universe, here I ask: where is the article on the first pc game? SGGH speak! 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Troopers the anime

Does the 1988 anime warrant a mention in this article's cultural reference section? It is mentioned as the most faithful of media adaptation to the novel.

Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! The article is cited, so your addittion ought to be accepted. SGGH speak! 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Godwin's law

There is a mini edit war about including a sentence about Godwin's law [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This sentence has been there for more than two years and there appears to be consensus to keep it. I am restoring the sentence. Before anyone else removes it I suggest that we have discussion here instead of via short edit summaries. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is problematic. It has no mention of Godwin's Law at all. It needs to be correctly sourced or removed. Showers (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've sourced it instead to an article by some guy named Godwin. What the old reference was talking about is known either as Case's Corollary or Sircar's Corollary; I used Sircar's, since that's what Godwin used in the article. I also quoted the canonical text of the corollary, as stated by Godwin. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
why does this article need a dumb little aside about godwin's "law". it is an outdated usenet meme. what happened to notability guys. clearly sircar's corallary of a usenet meme is not notable enough to be worth mentioning in this (very very awfully written) wiki for a sci fi book christ Cats AND hats —Preceding comment was added at 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is reliable. It comes from an established national technology magazine from the United States. That's a pretty good indication of notability. As for its inclusion in the article, it references allegations of facism towards Heinlein. Which is what the subsection the Godwin's Law reference is located in is all about. Showers (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
the wiki currently reads: These analogies have become so popular that Sircar's Corollary of Godwin's Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, "Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days." now let me translate that into english: some people on the internet say this a lot so some guy on the internet modified something some other guy on the internet said when he was arguing with other people on the internet and the second guy on the internet wrote about it in an awful magazine editorial about the internet. this is equivalent to if i found a nazi lolcat photoshopped onto the cover of the novel and included it in the wiki. "some guy on the internet wrote an article about the internet and mentioned some other guy on the internet" doesn't make what the other guy said about the internet notable. Cats AND hats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.136.180 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If I understand the above anonymous rant correctly, you think that Mike Godwin is non-notable, but some txtmsg abbrv called lolcat is? Are you perhaps younger than 12, and believe that the internet was created when you got your first cellphone? I've been trying to be patient with you here, but your concepts of importance and notability are rather bizarre and off-putting for anyone old enough to remember George Bush Senior. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true. However significant coverage and reliable sources do. Godwin's law passes on all counts. Your arguments are ungrounded and disruptive Cats. Showers (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i am saying they are equally unnotable duh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.136.180 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, virtually all of 129.65.136.180's edits are vandalism. His edit summaries imply that he is fixing vandalism but in fact he created vandalism which has been reverted and warned. He's currently at a level 4 warning. I think we shouldn't waste any more time arguing with him. (The silver lining is that the sentence is now better referenced.) Sbowers3 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So why is Sircar's Corollary to Godwin's Law notable? Cats AND hats (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
oh btw that is a shared ip at a school. gj blaming me for the vandalism though. ily Cats AND hats (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if someone else is to blame for the vandalism. I saw that some of your edits were signed with the IP's signature so I leaped to an apparently unwarranted conclusion. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
it's understandable sometimes people in that computer lab go on wikipedia and do stupid stuff i forgot to sign in before posting here D: seriously though plz explain notability of this 'sircar' fellow and his corollary to godwin because i am this close to adding a brain bug lolcat i found to this article Cats AND hats (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terran Federation

Hi guys, I rewrote this article 9 months ago, before I learnt about things like "Manuals of Style", copyright, notability and categorisation. Would some of you mind taking a look at it for any obvious no-no's, so we can see about making it more inline with Wikpedia's style, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity with the military

One of the main reasons Starship Troopers is so popular with the US Military is because of the politics in the books. A lot of servicemembers despise politicians (mainly from one party nowadays, but I won't name names), and like the idea that before someone gets the right to vote, they should have to contribute to society in some kind of meaningful way, especially by serving in the military. I know that may sound controversial, but hey, it's a controversial book and I think that this should be included in the article. SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this should be included in the article. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why it shouldn't be included, as long as notable sources are provided. Ashmoo (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)