Talk:Military science fiction

MSF

I followed the link for MSF, and since there was no page, I started one. Please add/subtract/expand to it.

Ender's Game

What about Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card?

Examples

I think we should discuss some more of the examples given.

Ender's Game - qualifies barely, but is very atypical for the genre. The follow-up books don't qualify.

Star Wars: Not Military SF, but rather Fantasy in Space

Vorkosigan books: Not really Military SF, although they borrow some concepts, especially in some of the books and stories

Weber and Drake: More or less the most typical examples around

New: The W.R. Forstchen Lost Regiment series is not set is space, but might qualify

Among movies, some Babylon-5 episodes and some Deep Space 9 episodes come close, as well as much of Battlestar Galactica.

Video games?

Nearly all sci-fi games have some kind of a war going on. Starcraft, Freespace, Wing Commander are more space opera than military to me (and are in fact listed in the space opera article, too). I find it difficult to explain, though. In both cases the player is part of the chain of command and the games are about interstellar wars. However, the games don't take the wars that "seriously".

On the other hand, in I-War (Independence War) the player commands a fairly large corvette in a human conflict. He gets to make critical decisions, and actually has to watch as his crew gets thrown out of the airlock one by one. The story takes guerrilla warfare and even the "military-industrial complex" into account. The working title was Infinity War, as the story was about ending a prolonged cycle of hatred. Gameplay is far more realistic than in other games of its genre, including tactics only possible when Newton's laws of motion are in effect. The "military feel" was perhaps the game's main selling point. Although there's a lot of space opera in I-War, I think it qualifies as both.

I think one critical aspect of military SF is that the "military part" -- strategy, tactics, training -- is comparably realistic. In computer games that would mean Starcraft is not Military SF. Something like Harpoon in a space setting would be a perfect example in Military SF in games. VGA Planets?

I suggest either removing Starcraft, Freespace and Wing Commander and such from the list or writing a chapter with descriptive examples of military SF in games. The list leads the viewer to the wrong direction.

Anurmi 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions (about which I'm not sure)

What about:

• Jerry Pournelle, S.M. Stirling: "Go tell the Spartans"
• Jerry Pournelle, S.M. Stirling: "Prince of Sparta" (BTW: Is there another in this series?)
• Jerry Pournelle: "Janissaries", "Storms of Victory"
• Roger MacBride Allen: "The Touch of Honor", (and the second book in this series, english title unknown german title is "Die Fackel der Freiheit").

Some more suggesstions

I am new at this so I hesitate to add it to the the main page. But I think the following fits in MSF

• Falkenberg's Legion by Jerry Pournelle

• I would also vote for the Janissaries series of novels by the same author.

• I'd add the Dorsai series by Gordon R. Dickson.

Pinkmouse 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly consider much older candidates for inclusion in the military science fiction category, including Murray Leinster's 1932 short story "Politics," which was similar in many ways to the earlier novel The Great Pacific War (1925) by Hector C. Bywater and anticipates the "military thrillers" more recently popularized by authors such as Tom Clancy and Larry Bond.

NPOV problem

Is the endorsement of the Honor Harrington series appropriate? I'm a fan of it, and I say that an encyclopedia should not promote it. SpaceCaptain 16:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point, as much as I like HH, this was a bit over the top. This article had some problems, including lack of lead, I believe it is slightly better now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And somebody's put the Honor Harrington endorsement back in! SpaceCaptain 15:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to have been there all along. I just took it back a notch... --Stephan Schulz 18:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Call for More Historical Depth

I very much enjoyed the section on military science fiction. The only constructive criticism I might make is that I think it emphasizes the modern (particularly in regards to anime) at the expense of the field's historical depth and breadth, which in my opinion needs to be expanded a bit. For example, there is no mention of Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai series, or the contribution Joe Haldeman's Forever War made to the field, only that it did. These were both very important innovational works, particularly the latter in the way it also presages cyberpunk's tone.

More depth would be great. Go ahead, be bold ;-) --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I also can't agree with the above commenter that Ender's Game is peripheral to this science fiction sub-genre.

That's me, altough the signature is missing. Ender's Game is a great book. But it is very different from the core genre. There is little focus on technology and real war, the protagonists are kids, the focus is on the development of Ender and not on the external conflict. I think it definitely belongs in, but is one of the demarcation cases. --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I must mention that the exclusion of Star Wars smacks of personal bias. I mean, I just don't see the case for excluding it given the definition:

Military Science fiction is a subgenre of science fiction where interstellar or interplanetary conflict and its armed solution (war) make up the main or partial backdrop of the story. One definition of military science fiction is science fiction in which the main characters are part of the military chain of command. Another is science fiction in which the detailed depiction of conflict forms a major part of the action. Yet another is science fiction in which war is shown from the point of view of a soldier.

Clearly, there is a chain of command, armed interpersonal as well as interplanetary conflict, both of which are important to that story. If you want to exclude Star Wars, clearly something in the way the definition is written needs to spell out some feature of Star Wars (not directly of course) other than cliched to disqualify it. If not, the omission is a gaping one.

You miss part of the definition. In Star Wars, the main characters are not part of the chain of command. Nor are they soldiers. They are Knight, Princess, Smuggler or Servant. Star Wars is a fairy tale in space. --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, what about Asimov's Foundation? Can this be considered an early example of military sci-fi? It has military interplanetary conflict.

No. It has armed conflict, but it very much anti-emphasizes the military angle. --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kratman's final solution

I removed this paragraph as it does not contribute anything valuable to the article while being too controversial. Discuss here (and also message me) if you disagree.

(This can probably be related to Kratman's repeated mentioning of a "Final Solution to the Moslem Question".)(Actually, Kratman used something like the expression "Final solution to the Moslem question" exactly once, and then in the context of something he expected France would do if there were to be a Moslem insurrection in France. Also, in context, it appears he was thinking expulsion by France was rather more likely than extermination.)

Kent Wang 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of View

This is a great article, but I am a little concerned about the POV of some portions of it. After reading the viewpoint portion of the article, I came away with the feeling that, "unfortunately, Conservative authors dominate the Military SF field, but, all is not lost, as there are a few noble liberally oriented authors out there." TheRedAnthem 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• It should be deleted

The conservative/liberal comments are questionable and imply a value judgement inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. Reporting the facts is sufficient, to judge the relative conservativism or liberality of the authors is inappropriate, especially since one of the most often cited authors, Jerry Pournelle, has clearly stated his opposition to the entire concept of a single left-right, liberal<->conservative political axis and offers an alternative in his "Pournelle's Political Axes" image.

• I agree, that section reads in a very indignant, politically or ideologically motivated tone. If some sort of "evidence" or "proof" could be cited to support the point, I would suggest that it just be cleaned up, but I suspect the whole section should just be deleted. JDS2005 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting the section would be a mistake, if only because there has been for hundreds of years the all-but-universally accepted premise (articulated most famously by Carl von Clausewitz) stating:

  "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." (On War, 1832)

  Wars have their origins in politics, and are pursued (and resolved) according to the political tenets guiding the policies of each nation-state facing the reality of such conflicts. Absent considerations of politics and ideology, there is no "science" (in the sense of a rigor of speculative exploration) in Military science fiction. Politics, after all, is Why We Fight. The fact that this subgenre of SF is indisputably dominated by those who are labled "conservative" authors and readers bears examination, not denial. What is it that gives the individuals hostile to military SF (almost invariably self-identified as political liberals) to condemn the producers and consumers of military SF as regarding "democratic government with a certain level of contempt" when it would be more accurate to say that the writers and readers of military science fiction simply despise all governments which can be characterized "as bloated, inefficient or even openly antagonistic to its military protectors"? And what does this say about the liberals, who appear to find it objectionable that their conservative political opponents should point out that the liberal beau ideal of civil government is bureaucratic, indecisive, wasteful, and generally destructive of operational effectiveness in the management of retaliatory violent force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.69.41 (talk • contribs)

Your POV is showing. Many progressives would argue that military SF in the conservative/antidemocratic style is favored by chickenhawks who never served; and that the best military SF is written by the rare combat veteran like Joe Haldeman. That, too, would be POV. (But I'm signing my edit.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars is no more military SF than the Norse sagas that inspired it. The characters are individual knights errant; individualistic, mythic heroes fighting against the modern forces of regimentation and industrialization.

Star Trek is more about exploration than military action. The story takes place on a military vessel, but the majority of the stories are more like the adventures of Captain Cook exploring the south seas than the story of an Admiral Halsey defeating the enemies of his country. RonS 21:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Viewpoint section should be deleted. It doesn't add value to the article as a whole, and comes across as extremely biased. MWShort (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Authors?

What criteria is used to determine if a author is a defining author of the genre? Although most of the authors are great what basis has been used to determine if John Scalizi is more influential with his old man wars series than Kieth Laumer's bolo universe, Or john Ringo vs. SM Stirling, or Harry turtledove's sci-fi work/ alt history work. Is this something that should be included in this article. This should probably be removed altogether or given a separate list page. At the very least i think the defining authors of the genre tag should be removed and replaced with a tag indicating that this list is incomplete and not representative. Otherwise people can just add their favorite authors to this list with no real justification. Thoughts?Trey (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; this has been a problem for some time. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ok well there is one thought. I would like to remove the section for now. I don't think it adds to the article and it seems pretty un-encyclopedic. If someone wants to go to the trouble of creating a list with it later they can. Any major opposition to this?Trey (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as the series are mentioned - our focus is works, not authors. Don't forget to link stuff you are removing for easy access from discussions like this one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course thanks for the linking. My concern is simply that people will add authors with no justification something I commonly see on other articles. since the focus is on series and the books themselves the authors section seem superfluous anywaysTrey (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of the Sub-Genre

I have some problems with the Wikipedia article in that it is too short and appears slanted to cover an agenda that includes a very limited definition of the sub-genre. Since there are disputes among us on how to define it and whose and which works should be considerd canonical, I propose we go by the works, and the definitions they imply, of seminal works already published in the field. Perhaps paramount in this regard is the anthology Best Military Science Fiction of the 20th Century, Edited by Harry Turtledove and Martin H. Greenberg. Who among us is not intimately familiar with this work? It has been commercially the most successful book in the field, and should form a starting place in both terms of definition and author. From a reading of the Wikipedia article, you would never realize this. Here are the works that this genre defining anthology believe are the canon:

Among Thieves - Poul Anderson

Second Variety - Philip K. Dick

Hero - Joe W. Haldeman

Superiority - Arthur C. Clarke

Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card

Hangman - David Drake

The Last Article - Harry Turtledove

The Game of Rat and Dragon - Cordwainer Smith

Night of the Vampyres - George R R Martin

To the Storming Gulf - Gregory Benford

Wolf Time - Walter Jon Williams

The Scapegoat - C J Cherryh

Dragonrider - Anne McCaffrey

I, for one, would like to see a return to roots and basics, to the definition of the field Greenberg and Turtledove's introductory essay and the selection of their works implies, as well as a broadening of the scope of acceptable definitions. Ender's Game is borderline Military SF? What kind of nonsense is that? It's the core of military SF! If Star Wars, Star Trek, and Battlestar Galactica is Space Opera and not military SF, something is seriously wrong with our classification. Maybe Space Opera should be regarded a sub-genre of Military SF. DanQuigley 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)DanQuigley

Citations needed / List

My deletion of non-notable books from the list was undone. I contest that these books do not exist, and are not military SF. With the "unverified" tag on the article, i thought it would be acceptable to simply delete them. As someone disagrees, i've added fact tags to those i think should go. I leave them there for a while for someone to cite.... Thanks,Yobmod (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Fleet" exists; I have a complete set. It's an anthology series of collected short stories in a common universe, edited by David Drake and Bill Fawcett. http://www.rambles.net/drake_fleet88.html http://www.sfandf.com/html/scifi-fantasy-books.html?id=8&p1=1371&p2=books&p3=cs http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/d/david-drake/

Ellison's "Soldier" is a TV episode, not a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison#The_Terminator

Henry (as Campbell) The Lost Fleet is real; http://www.johnghemry.com/ http://www.sfreviews.net/lost_fleet_dauntless.html

Someone who knows what they're doing should pick up this section and put it in the talk page, where it belongs; my thanks in advance. htom (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, so now maybe you can add citations that reliable sources have called them military science fiction?

Soldier is a short story, which i've read. I consider it mil. SF, hence i didn't delete it. I contest the others, so they must be cited.

(don't know how i posted this section in the main article - my bad!)Yobmod (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of them are obviously Military Sci-Fi to those that have read them. Some you can tell just be looking at their covers. I don't think it's logicial to tag half the list of titles and leave the others alone. -Biokinetica (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"looking at the covers" is OR. I tagged those i contest. Other's i've read and agree with. I edit according to policy, not logic :-). If others want to tag all entries, that is fine - i will find cites for those i think are of high importance to defining the sub-genre, and allow the others to be deleted.Yobmod (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The covers aren't the issue, don't take any of this out of context. At some point, policy will reach a gap, and competence must take over. Warbots is quite obviously military sci-fi. I have no clue how you think you can 'cite' any of these, as the closest thing to a credible citation anywhere will be some online book retailer's listing or a blog that could've been written by anyone here that also "thinks" it's military sci-fi. You can't be emperical about this, as it's all oppinion in the first place. This is why I wonder why Star Wars was taken off the list simply because one person considered it "fairy tales in space". Every one of the modern videogames for the franchise has everything that is military sic-fi, yet they're legitimate in taking it off the list? Are you going to contend that Star Wars: Republic Commando and it's series of novels are anything but military sci-fi? -Biokinetica (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to cite every book in the Biopunk and homosexuality in speculative fiction articles - why is military SF the exception? It is simply a case of finding a review that says "this is military SF" in some form. Reviews from established sites are reliable, as are publishers and incorperated booksellers, see those already provided below.

It is opinion, but should be the opinion of a reliable source - not an editor here. If it is impossible to reference, it is unverifiable and inappropriate for wikipedia.

Are the editors guarding this list interested in improving the article according to wikipedia policy and reaching GA status? Or just maintaining a cruft list of their favourite books?Yobmod (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, when this article was created, WP:V started with the disclaimer "Mind you, in writing it down, we may decide it's rubbish!" and had "However, don't be too keen to remove unverified information at the cost of completeness." in the lede[1]. There will be some intertia. Give it some time (and keep pushing - but pushing by example instead of by nagging is better). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the onus on providing citation is on the person wanting to add the info (policy again). But to show how it is done, i added 3 cites, all from a single recent locus. Isn't 7 months since it uncited template was added enough time?!Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to cite every book in the Biopunk and homosexuality in speculative fiction articles - why is military SF the exception? It is simply a case of finding a review that says "this is military SF" in some form. Reviews from established sites are reliable, as are publishers and incorperated booksellers, see those already provided below.

It is opinion, but should be the opinion of a reliable source - not an editor here. If it is impossible to reference, it is unverifiable and inappropriate for wikipedia.

First of all, the "reliable sources" you speak of are about as reliable as anybody else's oppinion. They're blogs; any one of those could easily be mine. Book reviewers can be editors here as well. The citation for Old Man's War is of a review that fails to keep the title of the book itself consistant. These people you're using as citations are just like you and me, no better or more reputable than anyone else. To demand this requirement of the books without demanding the same from the video games I think violates WP:NPOV. Why should they require citations when Wing Commander and Mass Effect don't? I think I know why they were never asked for citation; 1) They have their own articles elsewhere that the editors rightfully linked to, and 2) They are quite obviously Military Sci-Fi, even to those who've never touched them. I don't see this as balanced. -Biokinetica (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I can tell none of the sources we now include is a blog. They are from websites that have an established reputation, some of them (Publisher's Weekly, Locus) are even published by generally well-known publishers. A source should be commensurate with the claim. For most of these books, the claim that they are mil-SF is unexceptional, and a simple source is enough (self-description by the author or publisher, or a review in a recognized venue).

No, not demanding sources for the other media is not a problem with WP:NPOV. It is a problem with WP:V, and indeed those others should be sources as well. Indeed, I might make a case that they should be deleted, as the genre is not well-defined outside of books. Command & Conquer is military SF? Jericho is military SF? Stargate SG-1 has military and is SF - that does not make it military SF! Apparently someone else thought differently - that's why we require reasonable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the genre is well-defined within books (let alone outside of them), when this very article fails to do that itself. the entire section that's supposed to explain military sci-fi is totally OR. That said, I don't see a premise for not excepting Stargate SG-1's status as military sci-fi when there's not only no definition, but nothing within the series that would overtly disqualify it. -Biokinetica (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not call it OR (and indeed, some of it predates WP:NOR), but it certainly should be sourced as soon as possible. Defining genres is always difficult, and their are always borderline cases. But of course the quality of our current definition has no particular relevance as to the existence of a reasonably clear definition. As far as I'm concerned, SG1 falls mostly outside any reasonable definition. It's based on exploration, sense of wonder, first contacts, and a huge mythology. During much of the series, armed conflict is a used to provide action, not as an integral part of the story. But again, I'm not against including it if we find reasonable sources for the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying a reasonable definition doesn't exist, just that all works concluded in this article should be based upon common criteria that the article itself can define. I disagree on the point about SG-1. Simply because it's space opera in spirit doesn't mean it's disqualified from military sci-fi. The progression of the storyline concerning the Goa'uld is always predicated on military strength and the particular foe's command of defense technology. On the protagonist's side, all plot lines are solved through the military. Civilians often take significant roles (Woolsey, NID) and even lead (Weir), but everything ends up being resolved by the actions of the US Air Force. Whether it be O'Neill, Sheppherd, Carter, Mitchel, Hammond, or Landry, the resolution of the plot always has the mark of the Pentagon, not unlike other military sci-fi works. That, I think puts the series within reasonable bounds of the genre. -Biokinetica (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And your opinion is valued - but is not an acceptable substitute for a citation from a reliable source.

I found the dialogue of SG-1 to be comically bad, but i wouldn't add it to Comic science fiction article without a cite. It seems obviously true to me, but that would be OR, even if it's common sense.Yobmod (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Contested, a list.

Please add comments after the item, I suppose. htom (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Antares Trilogy (Antares Dawn, Antares Passage, Antares Victory) by Michael McCollum[citation needed]

• Apprentice Cruise (2000) by Jack Bagley[citation needed]

• C.A.D.S. (Computerized Attack/Defense System) series by John Sievert[citation needed]

• Clash by Night (novel) (1943) by Lawrence O'Donnell[citation needed]

• The Fleet series created by David Drake[citation needed]

(some references noted above)htom (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• John Grimes series by A. Bertram Chandler[citation needed]

• The Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell[citation needed]

• (some references noted above)htom (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• I ran into that one a few weeks back. It's obvious Mil-SF, and not bad at that. For sources, the author's page cites the Barnes and Noble Review calling it mil-SF[2], and this review and that review call it mil-SF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So citations are not so difficult to find. Why not add them to the article?Yobmod (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat easy for those I know...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Phule's Company series by Robert Asprin[citation needed]

• The Seas of Venus by David Drake[citation needed]

• There Will Be War series by Jerry Pournelle[citation needed]

• The Things We Leave Behind (2001) by Jack Bagley[citation needed]

• Warbots series by G. Harry Stine[citation needed]

• Yamato series (A Rage In Heaven, The Way Of the Warrior) by Ken Kato[citation needed]

I took out a few from the book section that I found definitely wrong. There are some left that give me an ache (Dune? Consider Phlebas?), but nothing urgent. I don't know much about the other media. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, i could find a cite in 5 seconds saying Consider Phlebus is space opera, but not one for Mil SF. 90% of SF books have a military in there somewhere, people have to be more discerning, or we may as well turn the article into a redirect to science fiction!Yobmod (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek?

Isn't Star Trek military SF? --Son (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, its a Space western, or Space opera.Yobmod (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. According to whom? 2. A series can be more than one subgenre. --Noclevername (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. According to me, and the citations i can find in 30 seconds. 2. So find a reliable citation for it being in this one.Yobmod (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

wikiprojects?

Is there a militarySF taskforce? Or a Military Fiction wikiproject? 70.51.10.112 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Subgenre Defining Criteria

I cleaned up some of the writing and syntax near the beginning of the article to make for easier reading, but left almost all of the content intact, as I think this is a well-written and very substantive article on the whole. I added one small part about the Lensman series as being an early precursor to military SF. I know this will be contoversial as many consider the Lensman series to be nothing other than pure Space Opera, but because the series so profoundly influenced Dickson and Smith's good friend, Heinlein (who openly admitted his debt to Smith), and who differed from Smith only in the level of their writing and the seriousness of their treatment of the field, not content matter, I felt Smith couldn't be left out.

On to another subject. Recently, I went through a list of Nebula and Hugo award winning stories and found that I had read 46 of the stories. I then surveyed the stories and tried to determine if using the most liberal criteria for defining our subgenre of military science fiction (msf) how many of them would fall into the category. Fully 74 percent had a member of the military, featured some form of armed service, had a mercenary who used weapons, or had armed conflict as a feature of the story. By this criteria even Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes qualifies as military SF! A definition for a subgenre that encompasses more than half the genre is no useful definition. Unless we want to see this category of msf eliminated completely then, we have to do a better job of distinguishing what is and is not military sf.

Many of us are uncomfortable considering a field we think of as Space Opera, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, or Battlestar Galactica (BG) to be msf. Yes, a military structure and armed conflict feature prominently in all of these, but it's a question of priority. Does anyone contend for any of these stories (or shows) that the primary emphasis is on the military structure or the military conflict itself, the military tactics used, or the application of a technology in its military setting? I don't think so. Star Trek is usually about the members of the ship encountering something new or unexpected during their voyage and having to figure out a fair way of dealing with the new phenomenon. In Star Wars, the emphasis is on the inner struggle of choosing good over evil, or coming of age, or interpersonal (not inter-military) conflict. Yes, there is a military in conflict too, but this is peripheral, not central to the Star Wars story. The same can be said of BG. In the new series, it's about a son's learning to reconcile with his father and grow into his role as President of the Colonies. It's about overcoming prejudice towards machines that we created and learning to treat them as people and to trust and forgive someone who has done something as terrible as genocide against you. But the emphasis is not on rank, military structure, or armed conflict.

I propose we draft a series of questions which establish a criteria for admission of a work to be msf and then apply these criteria rigorously to any work under consideration.

Here is my initial attempt:

1) Are the majority of the primary characters of the story in the military, and do they have a rank? Does this rank and the character's place within a military entity limit or enhance what the character can achieve in the story?

2) Does the winning of an armed conflict between two identifiable armed military services (not just individuals) feature prominently in the story, and is it a main if not the main determinant for resolution of the climax?

3) Are the tactics employed in an armed conflict in the story described in detail, and do the innovations brought about or military abilities of the armed service employing these military tactics form a central part of the story?

Finally, I have a fourth criteria, and it's the one that's the most subjective, and will therefore no doubt be the most controversial. Perhaps this criteria is unnecessary, but it seems to be in the back of everyone's mind, and is a main reason for many to want to eliminate some works from the msf canon. So, I will bring it to the foreground. The last issue is one of verisimilitude:

4) How realistic are the military interactions between the military personnel and how believable are the tactics used by the military as a means for achieving the end? Are they military interactions used merely as a plot device or a way to get an interpersonal conflict brewing so that the inherent quality of the character's character (or good vs. evil) can ultimately decide the day? If so, this is space opera not msf. Or, is it the quality of the military decision made or the tactic employed that decides the outcome? If this is realistic and believable and the focus of the story, then we have legitimate msf.

Now, can anyone tweak these four criteria questions, or somehow make them more objective so that they can be more easily applied? If not, I recommend we begin using these four criteria to start culling the works we are calling msf so that we get a purer, more meaningful result. Please recognize that if someone's favorite work is removed they might scream, kick a fuss, and maybe even shed a tear. I hope they can be persuaded to desist if it's patiently explained that the deletion is not a statement on the quality of their favorite work, but a necessary distinguishing based on the nature of that work. Enders Game, whether it's msf or not, is a kick-ass story, and will in my view be the single best work to introduce any teen reader to the field of sf in general. It may not really be msf, however.

Did this help? DanQuigley 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What we really need is a number of reliable sources. Many of us have a clear picture of what mil-SF is (and yours and mine even seem to largely coincide), but Wikipedia policy really requires us to use verifiable, reliable sources. This one [3] looks like a decent start but for a 30 year old genre with thousands of publications there must be scholarly works as well... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction has had a history of problems being accepted as a worthy field of study in academia. With that battle still being fiercely waged, who can devote resources for making cases for its subgenres? In other words, I have looked but can find no serious academic surveys of the field or authoritative definitions. Yes, Turtledove in his introduction to his famous anthology on the field touches on a definition, but must his essay really be accepted as auritative? He is writing for commercial purposes and to sell a book. If he can broaden the definition, squeeze in part of Ender's Game as military SF, and boost his sales, can we claim his definition to be motiveless? If you can find authoritative non-fiction preferably academic works on military SF, I'm all eyes for that. But what if we are the leading impartial authorities on the field simply because we're have read widely in it, are collaborating here (if nowhere else) to reach a consensus on a definition, and care? Does Wikipedia make provision for such instances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. While that can be annoying at times, it is, over all, a good principle. Consider the case here. Several editors think Star Wars is military SF (hey, it has guns and things go boom ;-). While we probably both agree that this is absurd, how do we convince a third user that our opinion is worth more than his? Wikipedia explicitly forbids original research. I think Turtledove's foreword would be a useful source. Also, I've seen a couple of quotes by David Weber, and suspect there is a full interview somewhere...yep: [4] (the interesting part is about 2/3rds down). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)