Talk:Arthur C. Clarke

Clarification needed

Is there a serious reason why the annotation {proseline} appears at the head Later Years in this article about Arthur C. Clarke and does not appear in the article about Mark Cuban under Billionaire entrepreneur?Lin (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In the line: "Clarke later complained that this had the effect of making the book into a novelisation, that Kubrick had manipulated circumstances to downplay his authorship." It is unclear to whom the last use of "his" refers. Was Kubrick downplaying his own authorship or Clarke's? --Navaburo 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that "his" refers to Clarke. --Gspinoza (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Furthermore, English grammar dictates that "his" must refer to the directly preceding name in the sentence - in this case, Kubrick. Since this is not what's meant, I'm going to adjust that. It's not just unclear, it's an error. - Lontano (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Writer infobox

I put in a Template:Infobox Writer at the beginning of the article. Feel free to add/correct info. Gaheris 01:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the Cingalese nationality, because Mr Clarke has double citizenship of UK and Sri Lanka. By the way, the meaning of the word is controversial: properly, nationality has to be reffered only to ethnic-cultural-language belonging, while citizenship has to be referred to the belonging to a territorial State. However, some peoples (and some dictionaries, too) consider to two words as having the same meaning and I think it was used in this way on this site. Only - I'm sorry - I fear to have had a mistake in digit and saved in a wrong way. I'll try to restore.

Bibliography -- Why Partial?

Any particular reason the bibliography doesn't include short stories. It would be a useful reference. Ichibani 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Is it really necessary to quote the entire text of Clarke's story for Wired Magazine? :-P 64.90.198.6 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Debut Work Incorrect?

What would properly define a Debut Work, as shown on the Clarke entry? As referenced in another article, Travel_by_Wire!_(short_story) is the debut story from Clarke.

Fireye - 163.252.113.29 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Islands in the Sky

I have a copy of this book at home, and it says first published 1954. I had a quick look on the internet, and some sources say 1952, some 1954. Anyone know which is correct?

First edition was 1952, John C. Winston Company, Philadelphia and Toronto. Source is Currey's biblio of first editions. Mike Christie (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I do recall reading it, published serially in parts in "Mechanix Illustrated" magazine. It must have been about or slightly before August 1953, when I was 11. It was my first encounter with Clarke. I do not remember if it was a pre-publication thing, before the book actually came out -- probably not -- though I recall waiting for the next issue to arrive in the library that carried it. Wwheaton (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CCCP and Sputnik

I seem to recall the CCCP presenting Mr. Clarke with a model of Sputnik and a commemorative plaque acknowledging his input. Can anyone back this up?

Asimov-Clarke treaty recent reverts

See this website, though that's not the best kind of reliable source; it should be sourced from a copy of "Report on Planet Three", though if I recall correctly only the dedication can be sourced there, not the background story. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it somewhere, perhaps in the Asimov autobio or somewhere else. I will look for it. In the meanwhile I think it can stay. It is unsourced, but it is true and not controversial. Garion96 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am the editor who originally put the fact tags to the "Asimov-Clarke Treaty" statement, and removed it in lieu of sourcing. We should always air on the side of caution and remove unsourced material until it can be sourced, although the sourcing is not the only issue with the statement. So folks don't think I am obfuscating anything, here is the claim:

• The Asimov-Clarke Treaty recognises Clarke as the second best science writer, and Isaac Asimov as the second best science fiction writer, in the world. The corollary is obvious.

The additional problems with the statement are that the second sentence is just POV, no way around that. The first sentence is just confusing. It doesn't say what the Asimov-Clarke treaty is, what the criteria are for its rankings of science fiction and science writers, or why it is important to mention it... Assuming we can find a good source for the first statement, something will need to be given to justify whwether or not it even warrants inclusion (i.e. the notability of the "treaty"). --Edward Morgan Blake 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. One possible place that it might be included is in a discussion of Clarke's popularity compared with other writers. Asimov and Clarke had a long-standing friendly rivalry, and this could be mentioned and the treaty cited in support. I recall another example is Asimov mentioning that Clarke is three years older; the context is one where it's clear Asimov is humorously reminding his readers of the rivalry between them. Anyway, "Report on Planet Three" is certainly a source; the regular editors here can figure out where and whether to include it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the second sentence can go with no problem. The actual 'treaty' I do think is notable enough in a trivial sort of way. Nice contradiction there right? :) And yes, we should always err on the side of caution. But unsourced material, besides material falling under WP:BLP, does not have to be removed immediately. You only waited three days for someone to add a source after you tagged it, that's too fast. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo, "[Unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." While the info was more irrelevant and non-notable than negative in nature (negative info being the focus of Jimbo's quote, elaborated at the BLP policy here: WP:BLP#Unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material), its always better to remove and discuss on talk. My apologies for not bringing it up here right away, which I should have done, but I still believe removal was appropriate. --Edward Morgan Blake 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All true within limits, but if you tag with {{fact}} you should leave more then three days before you remove the information. Usually you give it a week or two. Either way, I will find a source for it. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blake, I am missing why you are concerned here. You are appealing to Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and quoting him out of context to boot. There's nothing controversial or libelous about the Asimov-Clarke agreement. It's mentioned in more than one of Asimov's books, though that's a lot of books to look through and find it. I believe one of Asimov's book has an extended dedication ending with something like "In accordance with the aforementioned agreement, the world's second best science fiction writer dedicates this book to the world's second best science writer."  Randall Bart   Talk  15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for "property of alien civilization"?

His interest in the paranormal was influenced by Charles Fort and embraced the belief that humanity may be the property of an ancient alien civilization. Surprisingly for a writer who is often held up as an example of hard science fiction's obsession with technology, three of Clarke's novels have this as a theme[citation needed].

I'm not sure which novels are being referred to, but arguably all four novels in the Odyssey series have this theme? --Hugovdm 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Clark on Youtube

He recorded a message to fans just before he turned 90 (on the 16th of december) which was put on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXQ7rNgWwg - I think that should be mentioned in the main article (I could write it, but people always delete my additions) --IceHunter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Using cite web template seemed to help. Wwheaton (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the link at the end of the Biography section. I agree it is worthwhile, though saddening to his friends. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Some of you might like to join in review and criticism of the above article, which has lately been almost completely rewritten and greatly expanded. It was in a rather sorry state (in my opinion), but editor Dreadstar and a few others have done a fine job improving it. There is still some controversy about various sourcing and WP:OR issues, so critical inputs and suggestions are especially welcome, especially suggestions about reliable references that should be cited. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is temporarily locked due to the dispute, so we will be limited to discussion on the talk page for a bit, but that is probably what we need anyhow at this point. Wwheaton (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I think something should be said of Clarke's views on religion. In the books I've read he comes across as almost militantly against established religion. His mindset is agnostic and leaning towards atheism, but he seems convinced that all organized religion (though he smiles most favorably on Buddhism) should be abolished. At the same time, many of his novels imply his hope for a being greater than mankind (e.g. Childhood's End, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rama Revealed, etc.). I don't have any sources for his religious views, though, which is why I haven't written this into the article. 128.187.0.164 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Death

He died this morning. Today is March 18. Why does the date keep getting switched to the 19th?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.33.54 (talk • contribs) 22:34, March 18, 2008

Come on. Don't make unthoughtful comments here. Just think about it. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the question unthoughtful, just the user was a little confused. As stated below he died on the morning of the 19th, at 1:30am, in Sri Lankan local time. (As sourced from here) Tagert (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well its not difficult to work out that India is ahead of America not behind it. Your source confirms this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say hi to everybody else undoing the seemingly endless stream of "typo corrections". Hi! 209.97.85.233 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Some Anonymous Editor.

He died in India which has a time zone which may have put his date of death after midnight on Wednesday the 19th. It is still unclear as to when he actually died. Autopilots (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic,but I heard from the BBC towards the of March 18, Greenwich Mean Time that he died in Sri Lanka. ACEOREVIVED (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if we have a source saying the morning that means the 19th, until then i suggets we leave the 19th until evidence otherwise appears as was announced on the 19th in Sri Lanka (UTC+5.30). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual article says that he died in Sri Lanka, and I take it that this is the accurate location. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He lived the greater part of his life in Sri Lanka. It's entirely possible that he just happened to be in India when he died; but the reports say he died in SL. I suspect the confusion was from some ignorant journo who didn't know that SL is not a part of India but a separate, independent republic. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He clearly stated his intention never to leave Sri Lanka again in his December 2007 message, due to his declining health. Wwheaton (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states he died at 1:30 AM in Sri Lanka on the 18th. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states he died at 1:30AM in Sri Lanka, which was the 19th at the time. The article is posted in a U.S. timezone, hence the 18th of March publication. Tagert (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How many citations does it need? See this which says he died early Wednesday. (notlate Wednesday/Early Thursday) Quit changing it to the 19th. That is inaccurate.++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And Wednesday around the world is known as the 19th of March. Please get your facts straight. Tagert (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...the midnight hour here brings more than sleepiness, but also confusion about what the current day is. I made the edit in one day and my comment in the other. Wednesday is correct. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

mirror accusations?

The bit on paedophilia seems a bit overdone (i.e., undue weight.) It was one newspaper, no charges were ever filed, there's just no evidence at all. I think we should kill it. Any thoughts? Sdedeo (tips) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A strong support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it provisionally -- I'll edit now and direct people to talk. It just seems kind of extreme. Sdedeo (tips) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly reported by more than one newspaper. The statements themselves were not in question, it was whether they constituted an admission to committing acts which were then legal in Sri Lanka but not in the UK. It involved two national goverments, Interpol, and partly led to Sri Lanka changing its age of consent and to an internationally-publicized delay in Clarke's accepting a knighthood. It's mentioned in brief in several wire service obituaries. For us not to cover it seems shortsighted. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text:

In early 1998, Clarke was to be made a knight, with Prince Charles visiting Sri Lanka in order to make the investiture. Just before the ceremony, a British tabloid, The Sunday Mirror, claimed in a sensationalist story that Clarke was a paedophile, giving supposed quotations from Clarke about the harmlessness of his predilection for boys. Clarke released a statement saying that "the accusations are such nonsense that I have found it difficult to treat them with the contempt that they deserve." He also said, "I categorically state that The Sunday Mirror's article is grossly defamatory and contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false, grossly inaccurate and extremely harmful." He later asked that the investiture of his knighthood be delayed "in order to avoid embarrassment to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales during his visit to Sri Lanka." In answer to the newspaper's allegations, Clarke was investigated by Sri Lankan authorities, who eventually dismissed the accusations. The Sunday Mirror later printed a retraction and Clarke was made a Knight Bachelor on 26 May 2000, in a ceremony in Colombo.[14][15][16][17] A formal investigation undertaken by Sri Lankan police cleared Clarke in April 1998.[18]

Here's what that tells me: only one paper reported that "Clarke was a paedophile," and then later retracted it. It also tells me that the statements were "supposed" (i.e., it's not verifiable that he made them, i.e., that again the only source here is one newspaper.) Is this correct? Sdedeo (tips) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC reported the allegations like this: "His status as the grand old man of science fiction was threatened when, in 1998, allegations of child abuse, which he strenuously denied, caused the confirmation of a knighthood to be delayed.

Although cleared by an investigation, Sir Arthur's unconventional lifestyle continued to cause some raised eyebrows."

Again, many people felt his lifestyle was unusual regarding all the young children running around his home, no one can provide any physical information that abuse occurred. I think people should just leave it alone, since the man is dead anyway. --Overhere2000 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about his "unconventional" lifestyle, then, and not focus on a single article accusing him of paedophilia (which, to me, is just a bit of standard-issue gutter press hate-speech homophobia.) I think in a larger context, a sentence or two could mention it, but I think putting in the current para above is undue weight and also probably a WP:BIO problem. Sdedeo (tips) 00:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Thank you for your edit. I have restored this wholesale deletion of the Arthur C. Clarke#Knighthood and false accusation. I have seen this sub-section directly referenced tonight as a clarifying statement against the allegations. The sub-section has stood for a very long time and provides clarity and states clearly that the allegations were false and retracted.

Deleting such material creates a situation of confusion, by not directly providing the information. This edit had the side-effect of removing every mention of "Knighthood" from the article. By all means please do suggest improvements (perhaps best prepared+discussed on this Talk: page—given the sensitivity of the subject matter). Think improve, not destroy. Once again, thank you for enthusiastically helping to try and improve Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this paragraph is a massive undue weight problem, and if we went by WP:BLP would probably go out in a jiffy. I'm not keen to get into an edit war, so I will suggest someone else either remove the text, or change it significantly. Sladen, I suggest you read remarks above and reply to them so we can move along. Sdedeo (tips) 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it has undue weight; something that can be solved by moving it to a footnote lower down the and page—hopefully at the same time—editing it down to something shorter. I do believe that the Knighthood (knight bachelor) carries weight and that it would be should be mentioned—to even mention this in a single sentence would be fine... Once details/delay are gone into it's going to be a balancing act to show the timeline without bringing in further details. I would encourage people to edit the section/suggest improvements if they feel able to. —Sladen (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried something new. Sdedeo (tips) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That was easy. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I support leaving something about the accusations in the article. I recall them, and never read about the outcome. It should be in here, if for no other reason, that readers who were aware of the accusation know he was cleared.

Also, it would be great if someone with access to it could provide an actual cite to the retraction in the Sunday Mirror, rather than just other online sources (some of which seem pretty unreliable) that refer to it. The horse's mouth is best. TJRC (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with last contributor. The sources currently cited (a) seem to come from SF community newsletters rather than the mainstream media, and additionally (b) do not seem to provide the clear evidence required that the Mirror explicitly retracted as stated in the article. Nandt1 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the BBC News reference that got dropped during User:Sdedeo's edits. Possibly the other less import references could be removed now. —Sladen (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you double check that BBC link as it did not work when I tried it. Nandt1 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm ? —Sladen (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this link work for other users? I keep getting error messages: page not found. Nandt1 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I get errors too. Autarch (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CBE/KBE

I understand he was made a CBE in 1989 and a KBE in 1998. If the article lists him as a Sir, why is his KBE not mentioned? Doesn't KBE supersede his CBE? --Gordon (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He was never made a KBE, merely a knight bachelor which carries no postnominal letters. His CBE still stands, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that at the time this question was raised, the heading covering his knighthood had been deleted from the article. (See Talk: section immediately above). —Sladen (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not an expert. Google does turn up references to KBE but I suppose this is just general confusion. It's mentioned both on iMDB and a cached version of www.clarkefoundation.org/acc/vita.php Cheers--Gordon (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded on this question slightly in the article, in relation to the other knighthood-related edits discussed above. Hope it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

photo

Must we really have a photo with someone's advertising splashed across it? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. John (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rama movie

I changed the para about the Rama movie to make it less definite. People have been "attached" to this for ten years or more. The date "2009" for release has no basis, it's always been in IMdB as "next year". A movie like that is going to be in production for two years at least, and it has not gone beyond a few concept sketches. Just because you find an interview with someone saying how excited they are to be working on it, with no specifics, it is meaningless.Barsoomian (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Loose use of English

In the sentence "Clarke corresponded with C. S. Lewis in the 1940s and 1950s and they once met in an Oxford pub, the Eastgate, to discuss science fiction and space travel." does the placing of once indicate that out of the times they met, once they met at the pub? Or is it supposed to me that they met only once and that the meeting was at the pub? (Biography 5th paragraph) If someone has access to the original book can they tell me and I'll make the appropriate fix to the language used to make it clear. Lin (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence reads pretty clearly to me that they met once in total, in the pub. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Context is everything here. Read on.

If the sentence were "Clarke and C. S. Lewis once met in an Oxford pub to discuss science fiction and space travel", there would be at least 3 possible interpretations:

• 1. They only ever met once in their entire lives, and it happened to be in a pub and it happened to be about science fiction. Since it was their only meeting, it's easy to identify exactly where it was and what it was about, and those details are of interest (whereas a long list of the locations of dozens of meetings and their subjects would not be).
• 2. They perhaps had more than one meeting, perhaps not, but we're talking about science fiction, and this particular meeting is the only one they ever had on that subject. The fact that it was in a pub is neither here nor there, just a bit of added colour.
• 3. They perhaps had more than one meeting, perhaps not, but this particular one was of note as it happened to be in a pub, of all places. In that case, I'd have enclosed "in an Oxford pub" with commas, but there's no accounting for style.

There's not enough evidence from the sentence alone to say this was their only-ever meeting, so I would favour either of the latter two, but would prefer number 2.

However, we do have some context. "Clarke corresponded with C. S. Lewis in the 1940s and 1950s and they once met in an Oxford pub, the Eastgate, to discuss science fiction and space travel." I would infer that their contact consisted mainly of written correspondence, but on one (and only one) occasion they also met. The reason given at interpretation number 1 above would apply. It's still not absolutely certain that this was their only meeting, though (and I think that in the final analysis this isn't the really germane issue in any event). They could have met at other times and discussed other subjects, but we're confining our interest to discussions he may have had with other well-known writers on the subject of science fiction and space travel. That's my $0.02. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarke's Death Day

Shouldn't Clarke's date of death be the 18th of March, rather than the 19th? In the code is says to note the timezone, But if we do that then he actually died on the 17th of March - the source says the 18th at 1:30 AM, so subtracting the 5:30 hours for the timezone would put him the day before. Besides, shouldn't death be noted in reference to the location they died in? It seems inappropriate to impose some other time zone on people's deaths 129.241.135.52 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Lee Webb

See the above entry for this here. Arthur C. Clarke died on the 19th of March at 1:30am local Sri Lankan time. Tagert (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Epitaph

I think we should include this quote somewhere "When asked by Wired in 1993 if he had put any thought into what he would want on his epitaph, Clarke said he had. "Oh, yes," he said. "I've often quoted it: 'He never grew up; but he never stopped growing.'" ( see http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/arthur-c-clarke.html ) Phurge (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; that would be appropriate for the quotations section (unlike everything except the three laws that is in there now.) 75.61.107.152 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His comments about pederasty . . .

. . . seem to have been inadvertently omitted. Furthermore, the passing allusion - and dismissal - of the dustup about his relations with youths grossly misrepresents the facts. In the Mirror interview, the man is reported to have said

"Once they have reached the age of puberty, it is OK... It doesn't do any harm." "I am trying to think of the youngest boy I have ever had because, of course, you can't tell it here. I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don't mind, fair enough."

He is clearly talking about his relations with adolescent boys, legal still in Sri Lanka. Why are we being bashful about these things? Haiduc (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarke denied ever making that statement, and The Mirror retracted their claim that he is a pedophile, so how exactly is the article misrepresenting facts? Your quote has no merit if Clarke never claims to have said it, and the Mirror admits they were wrong. The359 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you document the denial? What specifically did he deny and in what terms? As for the retraction, he clearly is no pedophile since he is discussing pederastic relations, so it has no relevance to my argument - I never claimed he was a pedophile. Haiduc (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See the talk archive for discussion of this ad nauseum. --Rpresser 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Link, with the quote "He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia." Seems like a pretty clear denial to me. For good measure, Link, with the quote "I categorically state that The Sunday Mirror's article is grossly defamatory and contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false, grossly inaccurate and extremely harmful." Both are cited in the article. I suggest you find another source to support your "facts". The359 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The archives are by no means clear cut. There is ample evidence to categorize him as bisexual. There is also NO evidence that he repudiated his statements at any point, only that he repudiated the accusations, which is a VERY different matter. The facts remain facts. The paper reported his statements and made certain accusations. He repudiated the accusations but not the statements. And he asserted that he has had sex with males. What more do you want??? Haiduc (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence. Cogent, hard evidence. This is an encyclopedia. We do not make bricks without straw. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Playboy: "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?"
Clarke: "Of course!" Haiduc (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"...contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false" That's pretty damn clear evidence that he denies the statements. So no, the facts do not remain the facts, since you seem to only be going off of a single article which was later retracted. Clarke's statement that he abhorred child sex would also seem to indicate that the statements the Daily Mirror claims were false.

Also, an uncited Playboy article in which they ask if he's ever had an experience hardly makes one bisexual. It's called experimentation for a reason. The359 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)A soft-core mag is a reliable source? I think not. What is a "bisexual experience"? A sexual experience is either with the opposite sex, in which case it's a heterosexual experience, or the same sex, in which case it's a homosexual experience. There's no such things as a "bisexual experience". In any event, what would it prove? Very little. He could have been lying or joking, and given Clarke's intelligence and Playboy's journalistic credentials, I guess I know which side the balance lies here.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked for a source, you got a source. You want to do original research and present your well thought out analysis of the source, do it and publish it and then we'll use it. Until then please restrict yourself to sourced statements. Haiduc (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked, as any editor is entitled to do, for a reliable source. I didn't get one. And source for what proposition? Since you mention original research, I'll remind you of synthesis. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose that you expect people to give interviews about their private lives in scholarly journals?! An unrepudiated interview in Playboy is as good a source as any, unless you show me some Wikipedia exclusion for that particular magazine. Haiduc (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect that if you are going to make claims that Clarke is factually into pederasty, he'd be unashamed to say it. Same with bisexuality. You haven't even cited where in Playboy this is from. You're also making assumptions based on small statements. The359 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

from WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." Now how does this fit in with Playboy? I'd say consensus is against you on this one. I'm wondering why you think it's so important to get this issue into the article at all costs. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has shifted from pederasty to bisexuality, based on the archives. I am not making assumptions, I am taking the man at his word. Haiduc (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're putting words in his mouth. To claim to have a bisexual experience does not, by default, make one bisexual. And the Mirror's "words" have not only been retracted and unproven, but also denied by Clarke himself. Take the man at his word there. The359 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, you are toying with a POV tag. There is no source more appropriate for a discussion of sexuality than a magazine known for its focus on sexuality. Playboy has always had a serious, responsible side, covering art and politics - you are off base with your attempt to "disqualify" it as a source. The359, you are splitting hairs. You are off base to try to reduce ACC to some sort of pablum - he was a genius with a free mind and a free body, according to his own words; let's respect that and let's report on that honestly. Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, more assumptions. He has an open and free mind so he has to be bisexual? Hell, where does Clarke say he even enjoyed his bisexual experience, or that he had more than one, or that he would ever consider having one again. Provide some sources already. The359 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: there are two totally separate issues. One is Clarke and paedophilia; the other is Clarke's "unconventional lifestyle" and so forth. I think in general, discussion and speculation on the latter can be a lot freer than speculation on the former. There's no shame, and Clarke apparently thought so as well, with being gay or what-have-you; that's a million miles away from child abuse. We need to keep the two very separate. My guess, as I said above, is that the paedophilia story is just the standard-issue slur against gay men (or men whose sexuality is not robustly heterosexual -- viz. French slang for "gay" is "pede.") Just because news outlets (even the BBC, rather shockingly) want to link the two ("although he was probably not a pederast, he might have been gay"), it is wrong for us to follow suit. Sdedeo (tips) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bisexuality, unproven or real, does not equate paedophilia. Neither do retracted and denied accusations, or should we include a gossip section next to the trivia section?. Haiduc's comments scream of obvious agenda and zero encyclopedic worth. Let it go.91.109.114.87 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your first sentence. On the other hand, the "unconventional" nature of his life has come up in reliable sources (I consider Playboy, by the way, pretty close to an RS, but more are needed); there's no harm in discussing it in the same way we do so for plenty of other characters (Lord Byron, etc. etc.) Sdedeo (tips) 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no harm in discussion, just that sources are required before we can claim that these are things in which Clarke himself believed. Really, I think to classify someone as bisexual, that person should actually consider themself to be bisexual, and not have us merely assume. The359 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing his bisexuality now, not pedophilia or pederasty, and if the only reaction here continues to be retrenchment and denial then we will have to expand this into an AfC action. It would be better to stop throwing up defenses and to ask yourselves why you are so intent on censuring this person you seem to be interested in documenting. Haiduc (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We're more then welcome to denial because you have yet to offer any proof of your claim. One source with a two word statement by Clarke does not make him bisexual. Provide another source. The359 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Representing this as "denial" seems a little POV & ad hominem to me. The issue is what needs to be said about Clarke that can be reliably and verifiably sourced. Thus far, all we have is a vague quotation from Playboy, and I think we will need something a lot more cogent than that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the appearance of arguing ad hominem - it was really in response to an earlier ad hominem comment questioning my motives, I should not have taken the bait. The fact remains that his sexuality has been an object of attention in the media over the years and that is not reflected here. The various objections to his crystal clear and enthusiastic revelation of his bisexual interests and history (the "Of course!" speaks volumes) are part and parcel of the well known phenomenon known as bisexual erasure. I suggest you read up on it. Haiduc (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that wasn't waht you were doing at all, check your original post and topic title, you accused him of being a paedophile with discredited and denied stories, then watered down your position. I personally couldn't care less if he was bisexual or gay at all, but there is no evidence, verifiable or even speculative, to support either. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip coloumn and your repeated attempts to force the issue without bringing any encyclopedic evidence, smacks of agenda. You've been told repeatedly you need verifiable sources and have provided none. Nobody here is ducking the issue or skirting around it, the fact remains until you can source your claims, there IS no issue. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I revised my position about his pederasty based on others' arguments. As for the rest of your argument, I don't think you have read my comments carefully, or your notions about proper evidence are based on standards alien to Wikipedia work. Haiduc (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add some sources to this conversation, the Guardian described his sexuality like this "Clarke's private life remains a mystery. He was married briefly to an American, Marilyn Mayfield, now dead, whom he met while diving in Florida in the 50s. Asked whether he is gay, Clarke always gives the same puckish pro forma answer: "No, merely cheerful." The answer, presumably, lies in the "Clarkives" - a vast collection of his manuscripts and private writings, to be published 50 years after his death." [1]. Remember (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, the only documented, provable facts about Clarke that can be put in the article are that his sexuality is not well known, and that he admits to having had experience with both sexes. Any other assumptions need sourcing.

"The fact remains that his sexuality has been an object of attention in the media over the years and that is not reflected here. The various objections to his crystal clear and enthusiastic revelation of his bisexual interests and history (the "Of course!" speaks volumes) are part and parcel of the well known phenomenon known as bisexual erasure." Where? If it were crystal clear, you'd be able to provide numerous sources which say this. As of right now, you are the only source, and your word is not good enough. "Of course!" speaks volumes only if you make assumptions! We're not here to make assumptions, we're here to provide facts, and "Of course!" is not proving what you claim. The359 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would be elated, and would prance gaily around the room if Sir Arthur were confirmed in this article as Yet Another Creatively Brilliant Bisexual. But not without a Reliable Source, and none has been provided. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The (admitedly) second-hand citation of the text from the Playboy article representing him as emphatically claiming to have had sexual experiences with both sexes is all the evidence we need. Clarke is the best authority on his own sexuality, and he said he was and did. What more do you want, a note from his mom?! As soon as I get my hands on a copy of that interview (July 1986) I will provide all the details and we can close this chapter. Haiduc (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not proof enough to say that he is, factually, bisexual. As stated before, just because one has a bisexual experience, does not mean that they enjoyed it, want it again, or that they consider themselves bisexual. I would point out John Barrowman, who considers himself a homosexual, but has had previous experience with women. If Clarke has said he was and did, then you should be able to, quite easily, provide a source.

I do find it troubling that you do not actually have the source in question. Where exactly did you get the quote from then? Or are you just saying it from memory? The359 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is repeatedly stated in these exchanges that the Mirror retracted its claims, but I am waiting to see a source cited (hopefully a credible one) that actually states this categorically. The closest I have seen so far is a statement in one of the sources, attributed to the Sri Lankan investigators, that the Mirror did not comply with their request for a copy of the alleged interview, but that does not constitute a retraction. Nandt1 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I cannot find a source which has the Mirror's retraction, Clarke's later statements and the investigation by the police would still render the Mirror's claim as moot. The359 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It only becomes relevant if you believe the original Mirror report to be worthy of any credence anyway. Suffice it to say that if their allegations ever had legs, they didn't run, and that, at least, is well-documented. Furthermore, a failure of evidence that an allegation is retracted cannot possibly suffice as proof of the allegation itself. That is, as they say, nonsense on stilts. Some perspective, here, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the article said that the Mirror retracted, and there's no basis for that statement. No one has been able to find a reliable source that says the Mirror issued a retraction. I've cut that part of the sentence. If, indeed, a reliable source is found for the retraction, it should be re-added. The part about being cleared by the Sri Lanka authorities is well-sourced, and remains. TJRC (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More smoke and mirrors - being cleared of illegal acts says nothing about his possible relations with boys above the age of consent (12 in Ceylon for much of his stay there). Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For which you've yet to provide a reliable source, and I guess it's up to you, because you're the only one to whom it really seems to matter, for some reason. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been reverted (Reverted good faith edits by Cesar Tort; Rv, the "accusation" was "paedophilia", because the Daily Mirror didn't know the difference). However, since ephebophilia with 17-18 year olds is not illegal in some countries, something must be done in article not to give the impression that Clarke was a pedo (he wasn't). Otherwise the claim looks far more slanderous. —Cesar Tort 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you. The Mirror accused him of paedophilia. Not ephebophilia. We report facts here. It's clear the Mirror was wrong, but we report what they said, not what they should have said. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax deal with Sri Lanka

I visited the article page to find out more about a special tax deal apparently struck between Arthur C. Clarke and the Sri Lankan tax authorities, which I was told went under the name of "Lex Clarke". The closest I could find to that was this page, and the relevant paragraph was this:

Living in Sri Lanka as a "failed recluse", he was granted unique tax-free status after he persuaded the authorities to enact the Resident Guest Scheme (popularly known as "the Arthur Clarke law") permitting prominent foreigners who bring in hard currency to enjoy minimal taxes and a variety of perks.

Would someone more experienced than I care to take a look and see whether it is worth including? I certainly found it interesting, and was surprised not to find it here.

OldManLink (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Found this description of the Resident Guest Scheme. However, googling for "Resident Guest Scheme" together with Clarke or Arthur Clarke only turned up the same wire news story you have already seen. Googling for "Clarke Law" turned up a mixture of that news story plus mentions of Clarke's Third Law. --Rpresser 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I might have found an independent reference: Googling after "Clarke Act" and "Resident Guest" takes you to a book by Victoria Brooks that mentions the Scheme and the Act. OldManLink (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Footer

I changed the footer from

to

Let me know what people think Remember (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking out the Nicole Wakefield link. There are no pages for HAL or Dave Bowman linked on the footer who are massively more notable than her, and as all her appearences were in books co-written with Gentry Lee, she's even less notable in a solely ACC footer. I'd also suggest maybe linking the 2001 Marvel comics adaptation under the adaptation box too. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Other suggestions? Remember (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Under adaptations, you've linked 2010: Odyssey Two to the book article, not the film (2010: The Year We Make Contact) I's change it myself but don't know how! Sorry! 91.109.114.87 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just done it, didn't realise it'd be that simple, as i'm new to the wiki. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World page, it was followed up by Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Universe. As we have the previous two series, should we include this, even though it's red-linked? Especially as there are other red-links above. Good work on the template anyway! 91.109.114.87 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No opinion. I'm happy to add it and happy not to add it. I defer to others. Remember (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone just edited and I reverted, the Vandemonde books aren't really a series as such. I'd maybe suggest they were put into the list of regular books. It's kind of like (to my mind) including "The Sentinal" short story in the 2001 series category. I've only read The City and the Stars though, so can't comment authoritatively. 91.109.74.131 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also for similar reasons, i'd probably put The Lost Worlds of 2001 out of the 2001 series. I wouldn't even put it under novels, but actually non-fiction (even though it's a mix) as it's predominately a working account of the genesis of the film and novel, with the fiction sections as out-takes and more used as documentary evidence of the writing process. Again, this is a decision based on opinion so i'd maybe get a consensus. Anyone agree or disagree? 91.109.74.131 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Made a few changes if nobody minds? Put Lost Worlds into non-fiction, as even though most of it is fiction, the premise is a documentary form with the excerpts bookended by commentary. The excerpts are also contradictory in narrative so it isn't a novel. It's a literary equivalent a behind the scenes documentary with deleted scenes - something you wouldn't include in say the main Star Wars series listing if there was one for that.

Also I moved the Vandemonde books into the main listing. It isn't a series for 2 reasons. 1 - Against the Fall of Night and The City and the Stars are not part of a series, in the same way THX-1138 and it's original form as a short film are not a series either. The second book is an expeanded version. 2 - The sequel isn't even written by ACC, so is part of a series in a strict term, but this is an ACC footer and I didn't think a 'series' consisting of a short story and a sequel written by another author belonged there, especially as the original was republished in Beyond the Fall of Night, so in essence the entire series is that one book!

Lastly I put the red linked show Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Universe at the bottom. it is redlinked, but so are another number of articles in the footer, and it is mentioned in those articles and relinked there too. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure of the publication dates of the Vandemonde books beyond their year, which they share with a few other books in the footer. if anyone can confirm if they were rleased before or after books in that same year (such as Childhood's End for Against the Fall of Night) please move before/after, or does this even matter? 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally i've linked the earlier Rendevouz with Rama game to the book article, but don't know how to directly link to the other media secion of that page where the content is. If anyone can, please do. I know i'm including things that don't have pahes, but the footer should be a guide and the content should be there, the only question should be whether to redlink or plaintext them. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Different footer question: where's Profiles of the Future? Mike Christie (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just added. Sorry for the wholesale butchery, but I didn't recieve any responses from my earlier questions, so just went ahead. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent editor here and have no strong opinion, but it looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Me neither! Just done my last edit for the day. Put in "The Odyssey File" which is a counterpart in sorts to "the Lost Worlds" I've had the same issue as I have with the Rama 1984 game link in that I don't know how to link directly to the further reading section of the 2010 film article in lieu of a dedicated page. Could someone please fix these two? Thanks! 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

I have several times today introduced a phrase indicating that Sir Arthur Clarke was a gay man of the discrete homosexual variety typical of gay British men of his generation. It has been quickly removed once with an honest commentary and twice under the auspice of some other function.

How is it that ANY information implying that Sir Clarke was straight is included without verification, yet any mention of that which is well known amongst his friends and close associates is immediately removed? This is the same kind of shameful implied deviance to Sir Clarke's true life that drove Alan Turning to suicide.

He lived a quiet, discrete life that is/was typical of many of the gay Brits of his generation who sadly remained closeted to a predetermined number of years after their deaths - unnecessarily. He suffered the false accusations of pedophilia that is common among prominent gay men in the area he choose to live. The least you quick-to-undo homophobes can do is honor the man's true life and focus on verifying he was straight before removing the truth out of respect for the guy!

76.91.189.63 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)David B.

I agree with your beliefs about him, but we need a reliable published source in order to be able to include any material, especially material that some "well-intentioned" people will challenge unless properly documented. Haiduc (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you lose the attitude that everyone is against you and your opinion. Wikipedia's policy of requiring valid sourcing for disputed facts is in use everywhere. This is not an issue of pro-, anti-, or anything in regards to sexuality. This is simply about providing facts about a person's life without having assumptions and personal opinions. The359 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:V and WP:RS then come back if you still want to add that info. Btw it was Alan Turing, not "Turning", a fine Freudian slip if ever I saw one! --John (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add valid references that can factually claim his sexual orientation (please see discussions above). Because he fits certain "gay Brits of his generation" stereotypes is not proof. The359 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm assuming you mean "discreet" and Alan Turing. Now, we've already spent a great deal of time here today discussing ACC's sexuality, and the consensus is that, as with ALL Wikipedia articles, only that which is reliably sourced can go into the article. Not rumour, not synthesis from other sources, and certainly not common knowledge. It is unbecoming of you, and a breach of civility policy to assume that none of us editing here is themselves in the same position. All you need to do is provide a reliable, verifiable source, for your proposed inclusions, and there is no problem. But the WikiProject LGBT does not "out" people against the evidence and against their self-declared sexuality (if any), and neither should any other editor. I suppose now he's dead and can't sue, any old unsupported rubbish might appear here. But it won't. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said sir! This is an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. The person with the agenda is the earlier editor who was inserting claims on his sexuality based solely on their own presumptions NOT the editors taking out homosexual references that have NO citations or supporting evidence. Personally I wholeheartedly believe he in all probability was homsexual, but that doesn't mean it is the case with 100% certainty and as a result should NOT be inculded in this article until something arises to support it. In addition to the John Barrowman reference, David Bowie has had many admitted bisexual experiences, but describes himself as exclusively hetrosexual (and actually said he was a 'closet hetrosexual')in the 70s. An admitted bisexual 'experience' does not make one bisexual. Who knows, maybe something will surface when ACC's will is read? 91.109.114.87 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I reverted you. The Mirror accused him of paedophilia. Not ephebophilia. We report facts here. It's clear the Mirror was wrong, but we report what they said, not what they should have said. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) " —way above

Thanks for the clarification.

However, it's important that, even though he was (perhaps) an intimate friend of Leslie, the article will advance a clear distinction between a pedo and an ephebophile (which in the worst case won't be proven or disproven until the "Clarkives" are made public).

As to legal bisexuality, Arthur C. Clarke: The Authorized Biography by Neil McAleer is a RS. I won't speculate. This is a mere citation of the July 1986 Playboy as quoted in that book:

“ Some school boards in the United States banned Imperial Earth because of references to a homosexual relationship the protagonist, Duncan Makenzie, had when he was young. When Kelley used the word lover Clarke thought the word was too strong.

"They'd just mucked around as boys," he said, adding that there was "a whiff of that in Rendezvous with Rama, too. I guess I get more and more daring as I get older" [...]

Bisexuality was discussed. "I think Freud said something to the effect that we're all polymorphously perverse, you know. And, of course, we are," Clarke said, adding (when asked) that he had had bisexual experiences [my emphasis].

"Who hasn't? Good God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their encounters. I don't want to go into detail about my own life, but I just want it to be noted I have a rather relaxed sympathetic attitude about it — and that's something I've not really said out loud before. Let's move on." pp. 340-341

”

—Cesar Tort 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to back what has been said before, that he has had a bisexual experience. I'm not sure what you mean by legal bisexuality, since having an experience does not make one bisexual. It seems to me, as has been said before, that Clarke's sexuality is almost impossible to accurately classify, and if someone wants to discuss his sexuality in the article, then the most factual answer is that he has had experiences with both sexes but that his sexual orientation is left unanswered. The359 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Legal bisexuality" was an awkward way of saying that he most probably was not a pedo. —Cesar Tort 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a homosexual experience that makes you bisexual. A bisexual experience is a three-way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The logic in this discussion is impeccable. The man has had bisexual experiences therefore he is not bisexual! Brilliant! Why did I not think of it myself?! Haiduc (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I went swimming twenty years ago. Therefore, I am a swimmer now. Really? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc misrepresents the logic. It is not "if bisexual experience, therefor not bisexual." All that's being said here is that it is not "if bisexual experience, therefore bisexual." Putting it another way, not all who have had a bisexual experience are bisexual. And, for that matter, not all who are bisexual have had bisexual experiences (just as many heterosexuals may be virgins). Do you see the distinction? I don't particularly give a fig whether Clarke was bisexual. But before we label someone as a bisexual, we'd really like to have some basis for it, don't you think? TJRC (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I follow you Rod . . . he was ninety when he died . . . he could not have had much sex in the last twenty years . . . YES! That's it! He aged out of his bisexuality. I stand corrected. As for TJRC, I beg to differ, it is not that I misrepresent the logic, it is that using the word "logic" here misrepresents the process we seem to be going through. But leaving all irony aside, at what point do you imagine that someone becomes bisexual? When their relationships are split evenly down the middle, fifty/fifty? Or when they have lots of sex so there can be lots of examples? I am sorry to inform you that bisexuality occupies that rather large space between the two extremes of exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality. If you fall anywhere within that range you are de facto bisexual. Why is everyone here running away from acknowledging that the man had wideranging tastes. I would imagine that you should rather be adverse to having him described as heterosexual; or homosexual, either of which would diminish the man. Haiduc (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to a well-sourced statement that the man had wideranging tastes, any more than I do to a well-sourced statement that he was bisexual. We are not "running away" from anything other than unsourced speculation. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when are the man's own words in an interview "unsourced speculation"? Haiduc (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't be, but so far, you've been unable to come up with any source that indicates that Clarke said he is bisexual. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarke is bisexual when he considers himself bisexual. No more, no less. Having a bisexual experience does not mean that Clarke believes himself to be bisexual, any more than (as I mentioned before) John Barrowman is bisexual because he has had sex with women, but considers himself homosexual.

I'd ask for some sourcing from Haiduc of Clarke saying that he feels himself to be bisexual, but it'd be a bit pointless. You do not seem set on finding proof, but rather making accusations. The359 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't thinks there's a problem mentioning that he had bisexual experiences but we shouldn't call him a bisexual (or for that matter hetrosexual) person unless there is a reliable source in which either he identifies as such or is described as such. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No arguement, mentioning his acknowledgement of having previous experiences is perfectly fine. The359 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mirror retraction

I may be ebing naive about wiki policies here, but why do we need a citation of the retractionf rom the Sunday Mirror directly when there are literally hundreds of articles from reputable sources like the BBC, CNN, etc that mention the retraction? Are they not seen as reliable sources? Also here's a link to a BBC article mentioning that all accusers withdrew their accusations - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm Is this not sufficient to stop this agenda driven character assassination of the man that users like Haiduc seem intent on persuing without basis for some bizarre agenda? 91.109.74.131 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources in the article stated that the Mirror issued a retraction. If another source does say it however, it can be re-added. However, the link you've provided doesn't seem to work... The359 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What The359 said, exactly. Right now, the claim of retraction is not verifiable in any source and should be left out. This is an entirely different question from whether Clarke was cleared; this is about whether the Mirror retracted.

I've moved this discussion into a separate section, because I see instances above where the discussion of the existence of the retraction is being confused with the issue of Clarke's sexuality itself. They are related, of course, but distinct, and I think discussing them in the same section, especially such a lengthy one, is confusing certain editors.

Also, the ideal and authoritative source for the retraction would be the retraction itself, as printed in the Mirror, rather than another periodical reporting it. The latter is hearsay. We cite to hearsay all the time, and this isn't a court, so there's nothing wrong with that. But there's always the concern about whether that source characterized it correctly, got all the facts straight, is reliable, etc. In a perfect world, I'd have this supported by two cites: one to the retraction itself in the print copy of Mirror; and one to another article that refers to it and is available online. But to make it clear, my call for a cite to the retraction in the Mirror itself is a suggestion to improve the support for the inclusion of the retraction; any reporting of the retraction from a reliable source is sufficient for the retraction to be included in the article. TJRC (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too up on reliability of the Australian press but this [2] might fit the bill. Comments? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. TJRC (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What if they used Wikipedia as their only source? 89.76.77.128 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it would be no good. If you have any information that they've done so, please provide it. TJRC (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the list of Clarke's works at the end of the article. It is a direct copy & paste from Wikipedia 'Partial bibliography' section. For example entry for An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is quoted in extenso, with an ISBN and non-working 'Online Version' link.83.28.156.16 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the GFDL would strictly require attribution; since responsible journalists generally attribute sources, and the article isn't attributed, we assume they got it elsewhere. The alternative is that they are irresponsible journalists, but I see no evidence of that; the cited article, for example, seems to be moderately written and truthful. We would need evidence of plagiarism or a reputation for unreliability to make this citation unreliable. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the GFDL doesn't enter into it. It only applies where the GFDL-licensed work (in this case, the WP Clarke article) is used in the copyright sense; i.e., copied, adapted, distributed, or publicly performed or displayed. Copyright doesn't protect facts. An author cannot obtain an otherwise unavailable right to condition use of facts publicly disclosed in his work by wrapping it in the GFDL or any other license. But I digress. TJRC (talk)

If he was falsely accused and cleared should we be making any mention of the accusation at all? Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of mention. It was a very big deal at the time, and many people will know of it. It's worth documenting the outcome. TJRC (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is worthy to mention merely in explaining the delay and change in his presentation of knighthood. But only just in mentioning. The359 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but we shouldn't emphasise it and the outcome should be described in unequivocal terms. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Written accusations such as this one are a sort of nasty rhetoric that makes the reader feel that the accused might be somewhat guilty after all. —Cesar Tort 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, let's keep our "Mirror retraction" in perspective. At this stage, the main story quotes the (Australian) Daily Telegraph as our (so far, apparently only) externally published source for the Mirror retraction. That is fine as far as it goes, and as long as we keep the explicit reference to the source I am not suggesting that we change it. But just think realistically about the probabilities for a moment. An Australian newspaper prints a fairly perfunctory story on Clarke -- part of which (the partial bibliography) has apparently already been shown by another Wkipedia contributor to have been copied directly from Wikipedia. Ask yourself what is more probable? (a) That in the course of preparing this quite brief piece, an Australian journalist was able to come across that crucial piece of primary evidence of the Mirror's retraction that has so far eluded numerous highly motivated contributors to the present Wikipedia site? or (b) That working against a tight deadline on a short piece, he/she copied the bit about the retraction from Wikipedia like other parts of the story (making this in effect a piece of circular sourcing from an earlier version of our own story)? Sorry to be blunt, but in terms of evidence we are skating on pretty thin ice here. Nandt1 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If I can be bothered later, i'll post multiple links of news sites mentioning the Mirror retraction. I had a look last week and found about 10 stories within 15 minutes of looking, some contemporary, and some obits. I think it's a bit arrogant for us to assume this article is suddenly the basis for all the world's journalists. Is it really surprising we can't find a link to the actual retraction text either? Do you think the Mirror would publicise their error? Try to find any pre-2000 retractions online and i'm sure you'll come equally a cropper. If anyone could be arsed doing some REAL research, rather than Googling and copy/pasting (and we wonder why the Wiki has a bad name) it'd be easy to pop down to a library and search microfilmed/scanned copies of the Sunday Mirror or even send their press office an email. Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist! 91.110.58.220 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good site but requires subscription which I'm not prepared to pay, but if any journalists here use it, it has a complete archive of the Sunday Mirror from 1996 - http://www.newsuk.co.uk, also here's the original vitriol filled Sunday Mirror article - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980201/ai_n14474888, here's a citation about all 3 'victims' officially withdrawing their accusations - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm, interview with Clarke about the accusations - http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,101983,00.html, and here's another retraction citation - http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8604, and another - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/db1904.xml.91.110.58.220 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful. The UK Telegraph piece is a considerably more detailed story and frankly carried by a much more credible source. Would suggest citing this for the main story. 71.178.249.136 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Completing the footer

Now that ACC's life is sadly over, how about making a concerted effort here to flesh out the red links in the footer to provide a comprehensive document of his life and works? Of the missing links, i've only read Greetings Carbon Based Bipeds, and am only a newcomer to Wikipedia, so not really up to writing an article yet, but how about getting some momentum on this issue? 91.109.114.87 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent references

It might be worthwhile to collect here some of the snowstorm of references that have come out in the past few days. I'll list a few I have access to:

• Obituary in New York Times, "Arthur C. Clarke, 90, Science Fiction Writer, Dies", G. Jonas, New York Times, 19 March 2008.

• Obituary in Los Angeles Times, "Arthur C. Clarke. 1917 - 2008 Scientific visionary wrote '2001: A Space Odyssey'", Dennis McLellan, Los Angeles Times, 19 March 2008.

• Article in March 2008 issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine, with a photo of Clarke in a hospital bed in Sri Lanka, where he had been taken due to breathing problems in January.

• A news article from the New York Times that appeared March 18, shorter than the obit, but including some information about the question of his sexuality not present in the longer article, including his standard response to reporter's asking if he was gay, "No, only mildly cheerful." Both mention his close friend Leslie Ekanayake (killed in a motorcycle accident in 1977, and the subject of a moving dedication in Clarke's novel The Fountains of Paradise).

Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just put a web link on the article page, not sure if it is acceptable there per Wiki policies, but it is by a Sri Lankan colleague and friend, [3], "Thilina's - Universe Cafe - Blog & web site by one of his Sri Lankan friends, Thilina Heenatigala, General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Astronomical Association. Hope it may be useful to those who wish to pay their respects. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And here [4], "Clarke's thinking was out of this world", is a news article by John C. Sherwood, a long-time Clarke friend and reporter. Wwheaton (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Site from his friend Thilina Heenatigala, General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Astronomical Association: Clarke condolence messages web site Wwheaton (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Childhood's End

In Clarke's authorized biography, McAlleer writes that: "many readers and critics still consider Arthur C. Clarke's best novel" (Childhood's End). When Life (magazine) published a piece by Clarke in September 1992, it stated: Among his best-known works are Childhood's End and 2001: A Space Odyssey". I guess this should be reflected in the article? —Cesar Tort 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I just received the following article [5], "Clarke's Thinking was out of this world", from John C. Sherwood, a journalist and long-time admirer of Clarke. It includes an anecdote from Sherwood's past re C.S.Lewis:

"I actually had come to Oxford to conclude a two-year literary treasure hunt. The next day, at the university's Bodleian Library, I finally found a 1953 letter from Lewis to his future wife, Joy Davidman, describing his enthusiasm for Clarke's then-new novel, "Childhood's End." Until his death in 1963, Lewis had always referred to Clarke as his favorite science-fiction writer."

which might find a place in this or the Childhood's End articles. Wwheaton (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Nobel prize in 1999. was based in novel (epics) Childshood End: See:http://www.petar-bosnic-petrus.com/other-articles/nobel-nomination/ Professor Petar bosnic Petrus

RAF Service

Clarke's RAF service is quoted as starting from 1941 and his work with RADAR helped Britain win the Battle of Britain. The battle of Britain as in 1940, by which time research and development in RADAR was already well established. Indeed a network of RADAR installations were already working.

Robert Bramham

"The Star" in Sri Lanka high school English textbook

This passage is awkward:

In 1975 Clarke's short story "The Star" was not included in a new high school English textbook in Sri Lanka because of concerns that it might offend Roman Catholics even though it had already been selected.

Does this mean it was selected and later withdrawn? I hesitate to rewrite it because I know nothing of this incident.

Marzolian (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Universe ablaze with gamma ray bursts

I posted "Coincidentally, the passing of Arthur C. Clarke seems to have set the universe ablaze with gamma ray bursts" write after the report of his death, and it was promptly deleted, then replaced with word of his funeral. Well, okay, that wasn't the right place for it, but he is Arthur of "The Star" and the immortal line, "[O]h God, there were so many stars you could have used. What was the need to give these people to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above Bethlehem?" But now we have, not one, but FOUR 'somethings' that exploded with 'reports' arriving at earth on the day of Clarke's death! One of the gamma ray bursts was so violent that it would have allowed a naked eye that happened to be looking at the right part of the sky at that moment to peer 9,000,000,000 years into the past. To paraphrase the Great Man, himself, "How romantic, if even now, we can hear the dying voice of something too huge to imagine, which heralded the end of the Clarke era. What was the need to give anything in the way to the fire, that the symbol of their passing might shine above him? And fuel what legends? Pawyilee (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While gamma ray bursts are interesting – particularly the one which was bright enough to see unaided – they don't really have anything to do with Clarke. Adam McMaster (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you've never read The Star, nor that part of the current article that quotes his televised remarks on the Star of Bethlehem. Nor his being quoted as saying, "I sometimes think that the universe is a machine designed for the perpetual astonishment of astronomers." Nor, for that matter, the part about his interest in the paranormal. Even so, you're right: The gamma ray bursts had nothing to do with Clarke as he was dead. (Unless it was a Rendezvous with Rama.) Pawyilee (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. The big one was GRB 080319B. Pawyilee (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of GRBs every year, often arriving on the same day in widely dispersed parts of the sky. You're seeing a coincidence. --Rpresser 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, why do you think the lead-in word was "Coincidentally"? Pawyilee (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You could have also used "irrelevantly." Both are words that provide big clues that it doesn't belong in the article. TJRC (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While GRBs are detected by the dozens every year, four in one day is a record. And the Big One was detected by the Swift satellite at 06:12 UTC on March 19, 2008, awfully close to the time of Clarke's death (BTW, did anyone ever establish just what time that was?) But if the consensus is that this is not even worthy of a footnote to his remark, "that the universe is a machine designed for the perpetual astonishment of astronomers," then at least my astonishment is memorialized here. Pawyilee (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. GRB 080319B has been amended to add: "It has recently been suggested that this spectacle be named the Clarke Event [6], as it occurred just hours before the death of noted science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke was announced." So, if a consensus develops among astronomers and their ilk to call one out of the four "The Clarke Event", will that sway the consensus here? Pawyilee (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

I think that since Clarke's death, the External Links section has simply become a refuge for any and every news story related to his death, and this really isn't the place for it. I think a number of links need to be cleared out, and at best, can be used as references elsewhere in the article.

Links to his foundation, awards, and profiles on the IMDb and such can be kept, but I don't think much else is really necessary there. Any opinions? The359 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We always get this in the week or so after a death, they normally get cleared up eventually. Certainly refs used as sources should stay, others might be useful as "See also", but a cull is no bad thing. Be WP:BOLD! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there might reasonably be a list of candidates here on talk, with a community effort to sort them out into dispensable and indispensable groups. That way the article is not cluttered up for long, but the doubtful cases are not just lost from view. Wwheaton (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which was my intent in starting the "Recent references" section above, by the way. Wwheaton (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lanka?

There's nothing in the article about his motivations in moving to Sri Lanka? Why did he move to Sri Lanka?--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the diving, according to some sources. I'll see if I can find some reliable ones. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that he went there for that reason, but he was certainly a frequent swimmer. I was there last year and one evening we went to a swimming club in Colombo. I noticed a board with names of life members etc, and there, large as life, was his name. I checked with my host and he assured me that Clarke was a frequent visitor to the club and used its facilities. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoptive family

Can we include any information about his 'Adoptive family'? "Music from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was played at the funeral and members of the family which had adopted him cried as his coffin was lowered."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7309598.stm

Who are these people, when did they 'adopt' him? It seems odd that such close 'family members' would not be mentioned. 212.219.8.254 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail in 1984?

Currently the article states "Clarke's email correspondence with Hyams was published in 1984". It seems somewhat unlikely, e-mail correspondence in 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.62.140 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Email was an uncommon technology. That is part of the novelty. Novangelis (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I had email access in 1984. It wasn't Internet email, and was not convenient, but it existed. I think mine was offered by Dow-Jones, if I recall correctly. With Clarke in Sri Lanka since 1956, I would be surprised if he wasnt' an early adopter of it. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I also had e-mail before then, through a confusing maize of networks that existed at the time, ARPANET being the most important. I vaguely recall being sending an e-mail to someone in Europe around 1975, which I think was my first beyond the local university campus. Wwheaton (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain(ish) Clarke mentioned it in one of the prefaces to his books: he was known for being an early adopter of new technologies, and it would certainly have been very convenient, with him living several thousand miles away in San Francisco. I would hunt the source down and then write a ref tag for it, but I don't have the time. --Jrothwell ^{(? | !)} 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely and totally true (but you meant Sri Lanka, not San Francisco). Clarke used a Kaypro II (ah, remember those "transportable" numbers?) and a modem to correspond with Peter Hyams. Here is one link that spells it all out. By the way, The Source was founded in 1979, with email, and there were numerous others - as well as the fledgling internet that connected university nodes. Tvoz |talk 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, i reverted that change to the main article as that site says on its main page that it's obsolete. I do not know if it can be used as a quality reference, but i think not in these circumstances. I think it should stay here on the talk page for a while and let people poke and prod it. Galaad2 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. and from what archive.org is saying it's been marked as obsolete for more than a year now, since April 7th, 2007: archive.org link Galaad2 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The City and the Stars

Below the opening photo it's stated:

Notable work(s)

2001: A Space Odyssey
Rendezvous with Rama
Childhood's End

The Fountains of Paradise

I'd say that The City and the Stars is more notable than The Fountains of Paradise, at least for Clarke's standards. Shouldn't we replace it?

—Cesar Tort 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, though it is debatable. But how would one decide? It also depends on the epoch of notability, as several of the early novels were quite good (Earthlight ?), though now time has passed them by. I would personally order the list of novels as first CE, then 2001 (considering the novel and the film as really complementary parts of one work), then Rama or Fountains or Songs of Distant Earth as candidates; but would hate to leave out the body of wonderful short stories entirely, which I would have to rank with any one of the novels after 2001. Not to mention the excellent early non-fiction works, now almost forgotten, like The Exploration of Space and Interplanetary Flight.

— Wwheaton (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ok: I followed your advice. I do agree that The Songs of Distant Earth should rank high. Clarke wrote me a letter stating it was his favorite novel. This is no OR since it's also mentioned in the authorized biography. —Cesar Tort 07:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're Speculation on Arthur C. Clarke

Rodhullandemu: "I've just reviewed your additions to Arthur C. Clarke. There is a lot of speculation lacking reliable sources,"

Do you have any citations you can point out for this accusation? So adherents.com which is a valid reference which cites other references is speculation? So Arthur's own words recorded with him saying it which his mouth moving is speculation? You are apart of the war you pretend I am engaged in. You are showing bias. You mere accusations are not evidence of anything. You are breaking Wikipedia's own rules to suit your feelings.

Furthermore Rodhullandemu, Novangelis is the one who is edit warring: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1264745 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fusionmix

Stop using the three times reversion rule as an excuse to carry out anti-religious attacks and unfairly ganging up on those who make edits which mentioned religious views and stop making personal attacks in favor of Novangelis, a known troll, for no logical reason.Examineroftruth (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Watts died in 1973. Saying that he interviewed Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 is not going to become true no matter how many time you say it. Your references only support the revisions of others. Novangelis (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Examineroftruth, but not knowing anything about Novangelis previously and going purely off the merits of the information, it seems YOU are trolling bu putting religious information in, such as the FALSE information that putting religious names in Hammer of God equates religious interest/views, when he's clearly stated the Hindu deity names are because in the tiemframe of the novel, he imagined all the Greek/Roman gods would have been used up and is simply predicting astological naming trends. In his funeral he CLEARLY stated that he wanted NO religious commentry or rites and has been widely quoted saying religion is a stage of childishness in our society we have to grow out of. If anything it seems you're projecting here, accuses Novangelis of trolling when you in fact are, and putting words in ACC's mouth when alle vidence points to the opposite. 91.110.53.170 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And checking the Mininova link, you're clearly an agenda-ridden religious fundamentalist. How you can dare accuse others of agenda is incredible and anything you have to say now has no validity for me. Repeatedly deleting innacurate and agenda-ridden faith-based edits does not equal trolling. I heartlily support Novangelis' edits here. 91.110.53.170 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)