Talk:Starship Troopers

Archives
Untitled October 2001—November 2005 December 2005—July 2006 July 2006—

There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie

There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is already in the article. Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation–Bugs conflict

Terran Federation–Bugs conflict - I had linked this to the article, but... I am not sure it has anything to add, so reverted my edit out.- sinneed (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism/militarism?

• I'm surprised there is no mention of the fact that any soldier at any time can decide to leave the army without any questions asked. This is even true while the Bug War is raging. In which army has it ever been possible to leave during wartime without being accused of desertion and risking the death penalty? --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just re-watched the movie and re-read some parts of the book. An important aspect of both is the emphasis of Raszak (who in any real fascist society would be indoctrinating the youth with the ideas of The Leader) on independent thinking and making up your own mind. A teacher like that would not survive for a minute under a fascist regime. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, don't really see the fascism. I mean, personal freedom and personal choice are espoused throughout, and the right to vote is extended to any willing to work for it. It's not like they limit voting along any arbitrary and unchangeable lines like race, ethnicity or religious background. And the Terran Federation is a society with few laws, low taxes, etc. That doesn't sound fascist to me, it sounds libertarian. SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, Heinlein was an avowed libertarian, definitely not a fascist or militarist. --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's simplistic to describe Heinlein as a libertarian; his political views were more complex (and self-contradictory) than that. It is, however, absurd to describe him as a fascist. Whether the Terran Federation is a quasi-fascist state is again a more complex question; I'd call it more a junkerstaat (and that's not a compliment).--Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way? The citizenry of the Terran Federation can hardly be compared to a group of hereditary landed nobles who obtained their positions of status through the war of colonization and conversion carried out by the Teutonic Knights. As I stated above, citizenry is based on civil service, not something as arbitrary as bloodlines, as would be the case in a so-called junkerstaat. If anything, the Terran Federation is a meritocracy. People are awarded greater rights and privileges once they do something to merit said privileges, such as placing their own needs aside to serve, or, as the US Air Force succinctly states it, after they put "Service before Self". Any comparison of the Terran Federation to a feudal system is, in my opinion, overly simplistic and clearly in error. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I referenced the junkers primarily because of the cult of the warrior which they inspired in late-19th-century Prussia, but it is still a weak analogy. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see much evidence that military service buys you greater rights and priviliges, except of course voting, which is of little value to the individual. A retired Lt Colonel (which seems to be a rather high rank in the TF) is teaching history in high school. Of course we're not really informed whether he has to do that to put bread on the table. --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree though that any description of Heinlein as "libertarian" has to be qualified. Many of his writings resonate with libertarians. But in To Sail Beyond the Sunset he speaks approvingly of hanging people for growing and selling marijuana. In Revolt in 2100 (admittedly an early work) he espouses social credit. I think we have to consider him a man of libertarian instincts, but not a promoter of a particular political theory. For a writer, of course, this is a good thing -- ideological writers tend to be predictable and uninteresting. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Revolt in 2100 I was thinking of. It's Beyond This Horizon. Searches for "heinlein" and "social credit" mostly come up with For Us, the Living, which I've never actually read -- the socred stuff may be more explicit there. But it's definitely there in Beyond as well. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... the ability to vote is the "greater rights and privileges" that come from military service. And to the contrary, what can be more important than having a say in how you are governed? I mean, wars have been fought and empires brought down over the right to vote. Saying the right to vote is of little value to the individual is like saying the right to own property or freedom of worship are of little value. The fact that there are two separate categories of people (citizen and civilian) is proof enough that military service (or any of the other services that garner you citizen status) is rewarded with greater rights and privileges. It's basically the foundation of the entire society of the Terran Federation, as Heinlein himself points out on numerous occasions. Also, in an aside, if the rank structure of the Terran Federation is anything like contemporary military ranks, Lt Col is not that high on the ladder. Lt Col is basically "middle management". Also, you make the assumption that teaching is a thankless and low paid job, when nothing of the kind is ever stated. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I said it's of little value to the individual. If you personally couldn't vote, but everyone else who thinks like you and has the same interests as you still could, your life would be little different. You will probably never in your life cast a vote that changes the result of an election, above perhaps the city-council level — in every election bigger than that, if you had voted the opposite way from how you actually voted, the outcome would have been exactly the same.

That's completely different from owning property or worshiping freely, both of which directly affect your life.

Now, of course veterans are likely to have interests in common, and in real life one would expect them to use the vote to promote those interests over those of non-veterans. But there's little evidence in the book that this happens. That might be one of the most unrealistic aspects of the book. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you do have to factor in that there are many fewer people voting, thus giving each vote cast more weight. This becomes even more important when you realize that veterans are in no way, shape, or form a cohesive voting bloc, as personal experience has demonstrated. I mean, Duncan Hunter and John Murtha are both veterans, try getting them to vote the same way on just about anything. Same with John Kerry and John McCain, or for that matter Al Gore and George W Bush. Saying that veterans are likely to vote for common interests assumes that there are interests common to all veterans. It's like expecting all truck drivers to vote the same way. It's, quite frankly, naive. And again, if the right to vote in no way affects your daily life, than how can you explain the American Revolutionary War, or the Women's suffrage movements worldwide, or any of the other wars, revolutions, and social movements formed with the sole goal of obtaining the right to vote? Much ado about nothing? SpudHawg948 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you wilfully misunderstanding me? None of the things in your last sentence are about the value of the vote as an individual right. As an individual right, it's almost worthless. The existence of the vote affects your daily life -- but not because you vote. Rather, it's because lots of other people, who think like you do (or who think differently), vote.

There are, of course, interests common to all veterans. The size of the pension, for example. If the veterans of Starship Troopers extract a gold-plated pension from the sweat of non-veteran brows, the book makes no mention of it. There is no indication that the testimony of a non-veteran can't be held against a veteran in court. That sort of thing. These would be genuine "greater rights and privileges" for veterans, and in a real-world setting where they had the vote and non-veterans didn't, you would probably expect to see them. But they aren't there in the book. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not "wilfully (sic) misunderstanding" you. Merely pointing out that the "existence" of the vote could not exist without the individual's right to vote! You point out that daily life is affected when "lots of other people, who think like you do (or who think differently), vote." And what are those people doing but exercising an individual right, which certainly must be of some importance to them, why else would they do it? For all your talk of "other people" voting, all those "other people" are doing is exercising their individual rights to vote! As for Veterans having common interests such as pensions, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the on-going debate over the proposed new pension system for the National Guard. And, of course, inferring the existence of something (like some common goal such as "gold-plated" pensions when the author states nothing of the sort) is speculation. All I have been doing is taking the work at face value, not inventing new points seemingly out of whole-cloth. And at the end of the day, the fact that one group has the vote and another doesn't is proof that the former has at least one greater right/privilege than the latter. That's all I've been trying to say, so perhaps it's you who have been willfully misunderstanding me? SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The vote can certainly exist without you having the right to vote. It's important to you that the groups with which you identify not be excluded from the franchise; if your voting privilege specifically were gone, it would hurt only your pride. So it's important as a group right, but not as an individual right. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But as I have been trying to say all along, it is a group right that cannot exist without the individual right! Honestly, this seems like it's become a "forest and the trees" argument, with you arguing that the trees do not matter on their own, as the forest would still exist, and me trying to point out (thus far in vain) that you cannot have a forest without all the individual trees! If anything, your argument sounds like something you could expect Juan Rico's father to say in an attempt to keep him from entering Federal service. The entire Terran Federation is predicated on the individual right to vote. Without an individual right to vote, there IS NO GROUP RIGHT!!! Regardless, my entire point originally was to answer your query about what greater rights service garnered by pointing out that the right to vote, held by one group but not another, is a greater right. SpudHawg948 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Version of article when passed as FA

Starship Troopers March 8, 2006 Might be a good idea to revisit the old article and revise the content to remove so much focus on "Controversy". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The Controversy section hasn't changed all that much, it has the same four subsections and is of approximately the same length as in that older version. --Noren (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Controversy section is too long -- right now it's almost one third of the article (34420 characters by my count in the article, 10891 of those are in the controversy section, a rate 31.6%). I got it -- some folks don't like the book. It seems hardly worth this much space to say that. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy is about Heinlein's treatment of matters important in the real world, which are fundamental to the book's premises, and which it was written specifically to address - he was doing more than just writing a piece of entertaining fiction. That the controversy is considerable, which the size of the section merely reflects, demonstrates his success in creating arguments of intellectual weight about important considerations, whether or not one agrees with his own conclusions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree too. The book maunders in and out of political discourse interminably. It is an Anne Rand style political commentary, and about as subtle with it as a kick in the nuts. He was writing it to make a political point. This got up a lot of people's noses and it is almost impossible to talk about the book without the politics, hence controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.249.132 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Banner {{WPMILHIST}}

There is a discussion on this book in particular, and on any military reading list books from military academies and training facilities in general at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#RFC:_Does_the_book.2C_Starship_Troopers.2C_fit_in_our_criteria_for_inclusion

(the topic was started on 23 December 2009 - so if it not there, check the archives).

76.66.197.17 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the dead link to the IOBC (updated to Ft Benning at https://www.benning.army.mil/ibolc/welcome/ChiefofInfantryReadingListApr09.pdf) and ST is off the list. I'm removing the reference. CompRhetoric (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Navy, for example, Starship Troopers is on the recommended list for Junior Enlisted personnel. The above linked Ft. Benning list starts at an NCO rank and goes up, so it's entirely plausible that the book is still on a reading list intended for junior enlisted Army personnel. That being said, I couldn't find such an official list, so I agree that it should not be in the article at this time due to being unsourced. Does anyone have a link or copy of a current Army list for junior enlisted persons? --Noren (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's back on the Commandant's Reading List for the Marine Corps. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Entry

Article is too long and needs complete revising. Link to: Johnnie Rico states he is a Filipina, the text suggests an Argentine or some other S.A.. All references to movies and games should be literary removed and most elements should be placed in present-tense as fiction. <removed link to copyright violation> Ncsr11

Rico does not state he is a Filipina; he does clearly state that he is a Filipino; and there is nothing whatsover in the book to suggest that this is false. There is no justification I can see for the removal of references to the existence of games, movies, etc. And we don't take kindly to people who insert links to copyright violations here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For a more detailed discussion of where this is mentioned in the book, see this archived talk page discussion.--Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations of fascism"

This section is of long standing, is well-footnoted, and is well-balanced. There is no justification that I have ever seen presented for its persistent removal. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While I personally think the allegations are generally made by people who haven't actually read and understood the book, they are indeed common enough accusations. Plus it is referenced and has been in the article for a long time. In fact the section, with some alterations, appeared in the Featured Article version of the article back in 2006. Canterbury Tail talk 00:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, I must agree, too. The only excuse I can offer for my undoing the addition is that my memory incorrectly placed that section in the movie's article, not in the book's, but the allegations were around long before the movie was thought of (and may have been part of the director's misunderstanding of the book itself.) Sorry for participating in a revert squabble; the section should stay. htom (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Politics

I am wondering what connection the quote "correct morals arise from knowing what man is—not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be." has with anti-communism. It is not clear who he is referring to and I see no specific mention, unlike the other quotes given in the same section (such as to do with Marx and the Labour ToV) to communist theory. I have removed it, maybe too boldly, until someone can explain it. It seems a bit like original research to me, because unlike the other quotes, it isnt obvious what he is trying to say in relation to communism. ValenShephard (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is no clear indication that Heinlein is talking about communism in this passage. I really doubt Heinlein was inclined to describe communists as "do-gooders". --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response. I wonder if anyone knows what he is actually referring to in that quote? It seems very diffuse though, so I guess it could be interpreted many ways. ValenShephard (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it means, wikieditors shouldn't be quoting primary sources to advance interpretations of a text. We need to rely on notable commentators who have done so. Ashmoo (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also true. --Trovatore (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I just wanted to see some way of including what I removed, I dont like simply cutting an article. ValenShephard (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an understandable sentiment not to want to destroy the work of others, but unfortunately I don't think it's one that helps us build a quality encyclopedia. If we're sentimental about removing clutter we wind up with cluttered prose. This is a particular danger in designed-by-committee type projects. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't particularly want it included, I removed it after all. What do you mean this is a danger in designed by committee type projects? ValenShephard (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just what I said. A lot of people contribute a little bit, and no single person is responsible for working it into a coherent narrative. --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote was wrongly attributed, too; my memory is that it was Rico's memory of retired Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois, speaking in class, not Rico (who did agree with the quote.) I've got to re-read it. htom (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

Of course "Starship troopers" is racist. Remember Untermensch, Yellow Monkey, Rats, Infidels, Nonpersons, Second-class citizens, Lives unworthy of life and other forms of Dehumanization. All more than enough to support war. Is Heinlein putting us in front of the mirror? Aldo L (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That sort of discussion is off-topic here. Talk pages are for discussions of changes (or proposed changes) to the article, not discussions of the subject matter of the article per se. --Trovatore (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I am sorry. What I am trying to say is that this, the relationship between war and racism, was debated a hundred times before. The new debate here should be whether Heinlein himself was racist (something that I have never heard before) or just his opus. If the latter is the case, I think that it would constitute a non issue. War is war: it is racist, it is cruel, it is immoral, it is unholy, etc. I don't see any controversy here. If I am allowed to, I would like to introduce two options: we may consider the section "Allegations of racism" redundant, or we may look for more references that explain the inclusion of racist material into "Starship troopers". Aldo L (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable notable sources that have defended Starship Troopers in this way, please include it. Ashmoo (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Aside from the cliché usage of saying the novel "has attracted controversy and criticism", the source in question is a review of the film, not the novel, with some personal reminiscences of the book in the review from a reviewer who read it 38 years ago. This should not go in the lead section unless it can be shown that the book actually has significant controversy and criticism from established critics. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the article shows this to be true, I see no reason to link to the Salon article in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

External Link Deleted?

Hi, I placed a link to my article on Starship Troopers, which was recently published in the New York Review of Science Fiction (January 2011), in the External Links section, but it was deleted. Is this because I linked to the paper on my academia.edu site? Unfortunately, NYRSF has not recently updated their site, so this is the only online access for it. It directly engages the issues raised in the criticism and controversy section, as well as some of the other essays linked under external links, which is why I added it. Advice appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilGochenour (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actual Military Assignment

The author mentions at the begining of Chapter Three, that Rico is sent to basic at Camp Currie on the northern prairies of Alberta, Canada assigned to the Third Training Regiment, as a bivouced camp. Similar, Alberta's primary infantry training grounds of the Canadian Army to that region is CFB Wainwright on the northern prairies in Denwood, Alberta. The primary infrantry to that region would be the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI) under the 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1CMBG) based at Lancaster Park, CFB Edmonton composed of two rifle companies (airborne and mountain), a fire support company, and a command and support company. Because Camp Currie is bivouced it could be intended as being anywhere a few miles north of Edmonton. When Canada mobilized for Korea and NATO its three traditional Regular Force regiments (The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and Royal 22^e Régiment) expanded into three battalions of the "Mobile Strike Force". The author's intentions is that Rico's first outfit is "Willie's Wildcat's", Company K, Third Regiment, First Mobile Infantry Division, Federal Service. -August 29, 2011

Sounds like original research to me. You don't know Heinlein's intentions, and he may have just made things up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase intentions is just a way of stating that it was written in the book.

Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (1974)

In terms of military science fiction, despite the controversies regarding Robert A. Heinlein's, Starship Troopers (1958), at conventions for a number of years science fiction authors routinely cited Joe Haldeman's, The Forever War (1974) as the 'perfect' military science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.3.20 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Joe is a combat veteran with the shrapnel to prove it (still sets off alarms when he goes through scanners), and wrote Forever War in part as an answer to Starship Troopers. But what is your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Hegemony in China

An interesting fact: in the Chinese translation (or some Chinese translations), "Chinese Hegemony" is changed to "Japanese Hegemony". Is this worth a mention perhaps? I wonder if any other changes has been made, or if other translations take similar liberties. 114.91.209.211 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Positioning of Gifford essay

Why is the paragraph treating James Gifford's excellent essay, on Heinlein's claims about the "mostly civil service" nature of Federal Service versus the actual textual evidence, placed in the "Allegations of fascism" section? Whether most electors are military veterans is only weakly related to fascism in any sense of the word that I understand. Wouldn't it make more sense in the "Allegations of militarism" section? --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Military history section error

In the section "Military history, traditions, and military science" the text implies that Sir Arthur Currie commanded the Canadian Corps during the second world war. In fact he held that post during the first world war. 128.115.27.10 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Brock 11/29/2011