Talk:Starship Troopers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Warhammer Reference

"The idea of power armor was taken to it's zenith with the Space Marines of the Warhammer 40K Universe."

I removed that sentence from the "Military Aspects" portion of the article due to the fact that it's a purely POV statement- nobody can objectively say what the zenith of that particular concept was, and certainly no consensus exists on that topic.

Original title of book

I just wanted to point out to all of you that the original name of the book appears nowhere in the article. —preceding unsigned comment by Tenlow (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 December 2005

What is it, and can you give a citation? Palm_Dogg 06:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

N/M. Done. Palm_Dogg 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia nuts

Shouldn't it ref the ship? RAH made a point of it, (rightly) cred a MoH winner. Trekphiler 18:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Before I edited the entry, Rico was identified as "born from a wealthy ARGENTINIAN family". Since this article is based more on the novel, Rico is in fact Filipino. Any reference to Rico being from another nationality is purely referenced from the movie (which has multiple inconsistencies, regardless) GeoffB 26 March

Agreed, in the movie Rico wasn't argentinian either, he was from Buenos Aeres (a place that at this time is in argentina) But in the movie of course the world had been united under the banner of the terran federation and individual nationality had been replaced by a form of global unity. It was one of the key underlying points of both the book and movie. (Even though the movie did very little to highlight it and used an all american cast.)Filipino is a racial description and suits Rico much better, a good edit imo.

In the novel, Rico's nationality and background are left completely blank, apparently a trick from RAH to lead the reader to believe he's American. Only at the very end is it stated his famili is Filipino in origin, but even then, it's not said anywhere where they might have moved since. --Svartalf 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a high-quality article, but...

I agree that a list of sources are needed, and that too much emphasis is put on the movie and other adaptations. The novel itself can support an extensive article.

It's difficult to avoid POV when it comes to the lack of coherency between the book and the movie, but I think that the bootcamp is the only place where the movie comes close to having the feel of the book. Having seen the movie before reading the book, I was really surprised that important topics like the "drop suits", the "dogs" and "The Skinnies" weren't featured in the movie, if it is indeed true, that the movie was retitled and rewritten late in the production, explains it all.

Another POV if mine, is that I think that the book is a wake-up call, and a warning to the future about the coming failure of democracy, and I think that the book was quite visionary on this. Today we have reality shows featuring children that are being sent to "bootcamps". The present seems more and more "Heinleinish".

Being quite liberal, I found myself subscribing to views of the "facist" opressive society on child upbringing and education, with the current crisis that our western educational systems are facing, where there is such a strong emphasis on the individual over the common good of society, Heinlein gives os a peek into the consequences of too "soft" policies, and that democracy can disappear overnight if a laissez-faire attitude is being adopted by society.

This is, of course, quite POV and it belongs in a book review, but the book really made me think about the problems facing current society, and the only even scarier book I've read dealing with this subject is "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess - I see a lot of similarites between these two works when it comes to the moral issues.

It's a very strong book, and it should be required reading for EVERYONE. Kim Bach 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For someone concerned about the "coming failure of democracy", you seem pretty supportive of compulsory reading... :) Kaisershatner 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Guess I should have written highly recommended instead. Kim Bach 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with compulsory reading? We have compulsory education. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a nation of dumbasses, especially when they can outnumber and outvote me. Give me required education and required reading, so I can trust my fellow-citizens to not be idiots. I'm all with Heinlein on this one: there should be some sort of qualifying distinction on franchise. I just don't agree with him on what it should be. Kasreyn 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The article, although a "featured one", lacks heavily in the NPOV department. The assumption that the book is a vehicle for Heinlein's alleged "political views" is totally unsupported. One must never mistake a book's POV for the author's POV, unless the author specifically and publicly stated the two to be one and the same. --Dorthonion 20:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The new video game.

Could someone add something about the Starship Troopers Real-time tactics computer game? Mikademus 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a small line about the recent video game. I think a full subsection might be in order, though.

• Disagree about the placement because it's based on the Starship Troopers (film), not the novel. This page is only about the novel and things based EXPLICITLY on it. Please make your edits on that page. Palm_Dogg 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with Mikademus and agree with Palm dogg. If there was a Romeo and Juliet video game, you wouldn't bother mentioning it in Romeo and Juliet. The place for fancruft and games is in articles like Starship Troopers (board game), Starship Troopers (roleplaying game).--Bcrowell 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Books, films, and games influenced by Starship Troopers

I created a page specifically for all the books, games, et al that have been influenced by the novel Starship Troopers. The page was getting too big and the information there was too trivial. All I've kept is the information on the films, and the discrepency between the two. I've also kept ST games, but will move that if I see people trying to sneak in their favorites. Please make any additions to this new page I've created. Thanks! Palm_Dogg 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments, FA?

Nice work! This article has made huge strides since the last time I looked at it. I'd suggest beefing up the discussion of the book itself, because right now IMO too much space is devoted to the (horrible, inconsequential, and nearly unrelated) movie. Heinlein's status as an SF novelist is similar to Jane Austen's status as a writer of comedies of manners; you don't see half the article on Pride and Prejudice devoted to the latest movie. I'd also anticipate some strong objections if it's nominated for FA because all of the images are claimed as fair use. I think the political discussion would benefit from connecting it with the big picture of Heinlein's extensive and varied life in politics, which covered the entire political spectrum. Also, it would be interesting to see the book's treatment of the military contrasted with Heinlein's life in the military, as well as with the (sometimes very different) treatments of the military in books like Glory Road (where a Vietnam-era veteran is highly disillusioned), Space Cadet (with its philosophizing about different personality types in the military), and Time Enough for Love (Lazarus Long goes back in time, is initially reluctant to volunteer for the pointless WWI, and ends the book by getting shot to pieces by a machine gun). The rejection of the book by the publisher also was also a landmark in Heinlein's career as a writer, since he felt liberated to write what he wanted to write, and turned toward adult themes.--Bcrowell 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The fair use images aren't a problem. My last featured article (Triumph of the Will) was nothing but. How much of this info is on the Heinlein page and where would you find the rest of it. Thanks for your help! Palm_Dogg 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

This sounds a little like we are drawing our own conclusions:

In any case, the Arachnids are clearly not stupid (as Rico says, "Stupid races don't build spaceships!")[52] and in several places the novel expresses admiration for the efficiency of the Arachnid species. Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans."

Has anyone other than Wikipedia editors arrived at that conclusion? Jkelly 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WP doesn't have a rule against drawing your own conclusions, only against using WP to publish original research. Heinlein's use of some alien races as stand-ins for communism isn't controversial or subtle; in The Puppet Masters, for example, the first-person narrator explicitly compares the slugs to the Soviet communists -- not once, but twice.--Bcrowell 04:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are making some sort of distinction between "drawing your own conclusions" and original research that I do not understand. Jkelly 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

To pick two extreme examples: (1) in an article on arithmetic, computing 137+608=745 as an example is drawing your own conclusions, but it's not original research; (2) in an article on relativity, inserting a crackpot proof that Einstein was wrong is an example of original research. Wikipedia would be pathetic if writers were required to deactivate their brains before writing an article.--Bcrowell 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is either analogy at all helpful? As of right now, we are speculating about the role of a set of a characters in a novel (that they are a foil). If no one other than us has said that, we are the primary source for an interpretation crafted by a Wikipedian editor. This is exactly what Wikipedia:No original research is meant to rule out. Jkelly 00:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what I was trying to say is this isn't some sort of racial conflict like the Nazi-Soviet War. From reading the book, the theme seems to be "This isn't personal; it's just business." Either humans wipe out the Arachnids or vice versa. There's no talk about genetic superiority (except in favor of the Arachnids, such as the passage where Rico warns the reader not to think Arachnids are stupid because they come from a hive culture). Because it's in the text, I viewed it as drawing a conclusion, not as original research. Palm_Dogg 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion / original research distinction serves well in natural sciences as per the example given above, but is less clear in social sciences and art. The article currently has numerous original / non-attributed comments and speculations within it, in particular on the subject of Heinleins intentions with the novel, which are always hard to avoid when dealing with fiction. For instance, whereas it is a fact, that Starship Troppers describes a futuristic society with a limited suffrage, then it is a point of view that Heinlein holds this to a good idea, which should be backed by sources or mentioned as speculation. Similarly, if a character in the book speaks on behalf of Heinlein, or whether he intends for the reader to realize certain aspects or moral points, can not be deducted from a reading of the book itself, but should be backed by additional sources (interviews, research etc). As it stands now, the article is a good read, but it is not NPOV. 84.70.14.153 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image movement

Pleaes, for the love of God, if you're going to rearrange the page, please take a moment to move the images as well so that it looks nice. Just a polite request... Palm_Dogg 08:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hu's on first? What's on second?

OK, I'm going to assume you pulled my references and external links by accident. In case you didn't, Alexei Panshin is sited as a source on the FA page Robert A. Heinlein, so he should be good enough for this one. Regarding "fascistic by a few", we have a whole subsection where we talk about how so many people have compared this to the Nazis that it has spawned an addendum to Godwin's Law. If one changes, then so should the other. Finally, though I did not revert Kaisershatner's removal of "controversial", there seems to be a good amount of conensus out there (again, including on the Heinlein page) that it is. BTW, don't take this as a criticism of your work to help fix this page up. I think we'll be able to make this an FA in no time! :) Palm_Dogg 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. You are correct. I intended to make a small edit, but made an accident. Sorry. Hu 21:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Palm, thanks for taking the discussion here about "controversial." I think this is more a matter of semantics than about disagreement over the issues. I certainly agree with you that a large number of people consider the novel to be controversial, and that there is controversy w/in and w/out the scifi convention going audiences over the philosophy and implications of RAH's work in this book and in some of his others. However, I think we cover that adequately without calling it a "controversial novel." It's not controversial to me, which is my POV. It may be to you, which is your POV. The neutral way of describing the subject is (1) ST is a book. (2) There is controversy associated with it. (3) You decide what you think about this after reading the article. Calling it a "controversial" novel just prejudices the reader and takes one point of view on the book, even if it is a widespread one. I'm not suggesting we in any way ignore the controversy, actually it's a crucial subject related to this article and book, just that we avoid "controversial novel." Kaisershatner 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Palm, I know you're not really arguing this strongly at this point, but just for fun, I looked at the pages for Catcher in the Rye, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Slaughterhouse-Five, Delta of Venus, etc. Not a single one has "controversial" in the lead sentence, and most of those have been banned in parts of the U.S. at one point or another. Also, just to get Godwin's Law out of the way, I also checked on (blech) Mein Kampf. Even that piece of filth isn't described as "controversial." Kaisershatner 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, you win. I yield. :) Palm_Dogg 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ender's game

i dont know how to start a new discusion tab so ill post my complaint here, starship troopers is not the only sci fi book on the US military reading list. Enders Game is aswell. please change it.

I gave this its own subsection. According to James Pinkerton (See References), it is the only SF novel used at ALL the service academies. However, since he does not say the same about the actual services, I have rewritten the sentence. If you want more changes, you'll have to supply evidence. Palm_Dogg 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers --> Starship Troopers (novel)

I know it may seem redundant, but what do you all think of moving this page to Starship Troopers (novel)? Starship Troopers can then be turned into a disambiguation page, and it will also emphasize that this page is about the book, as opposed to the universe. Palm_Dogg 01:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave it be, please. It would only create more bother than its worth with links and link disambiguation, and I don't buy the premise for the move. The book came first, both in Wikipedia, and in the world, so the Wikipedia way of doing things is to leave it be as the primary article. All other referrals seem to be to films or games that are quite adequately linked from inside the article. Hu 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hu. IMO the articles on the games and movies and cartoons and comics would be good candidates for deletion, because their topics aren't encyclopedic -- but I admit to being an extremist :-) The good thing about the existence of those articles is that it allows fancruft and movie trivia to be put someplace other than the article about the book.--Bcrowell 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Korean War references

Hu removed "Though briefly mentioned, the cataclysmic Twentieth Century war with the Chinese Hegemony is also probably a metaphor for Korea."

Hu, you're right that the war against China is much larger than Korea, but Heinlein was writing less than ten years after China had routed our one-invincible armies on the Yalu River. In other words, he's extrapolating the future based on the beliefs and prejudices of 1959, and one of them was that China was a hyper-aggressive rising power that would eventually dwarf even the Soviet Union. Palm_Dogg 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The supposed war against the Chinese Hegemony was hypothesized by Heinlein in a number of his novels. It is much larger than the Korean war, more on the scale of a World War. I took it out because it was not directly related to the Korean war issue, despite the Yalu River battle. What might be appropriate might be a reference to something like: Heinlein felt that China's actions in the Korean War and support of the North Vietnamese and North Koreans presaged a coming geopolitical conflict between the West and China, so he created a "future history" reference to a war against "the Chinese Hegemony", a projected conflict that also makes passing appearances in a few other Heinlein novels. Hu 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems a little thorough for an article that's already a bit long. Nice sourcing, BTW. Palm_Dogg 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Heinlein's other work

When Palm dogg first called my attention to this article, I was very impressed, but my one big complaint was that it discussed the novel in a vacuum, without comparing it to Heinlein's other work. I've added a section in which I've attempted to make the relevant comparisons.--Bcrowell 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Due to complaints on the FA page, I've had to temporarily remove it. I'll try and merge it with other parts of the article once I've found some citations to back it up. Palm_Dogg 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

cut some material about movies and comics

The movies and comics have their own articles, which are linked to. The article is already pretty long, and IMO there's no need to add bulk with lengthy discussions of these. The Verhoeven film deserves at least some discussion, since probably quite a few readers will be coming to this article after having seen the film but not have read the book; but the main point to be made is that (by Verhoeven's own admission), there was very little relationship between the movie and the book. People who want to know about the film's critical reception, academy awards, etc., can click through to the article on the film. This is an article about the book.--Bcrowell 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shippey article

The following article looks relevant:

"Starship Troopers, Galactic Heroes, Mercenary Princes: the Military and its Discontents in Science Fiction, " in Histories of the Future: Studies in Fact, Fantasy and Science Fiction, ed. Alan Sandison and Robert Dingley, Palgrave Press: NewYork, 2000, 168-83

Unfortunately, the anthology seems to be out of print, and is running $149 on Alibris.--Bcrowell 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

20th century popular fiction featured articles

apart from The Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy & The Foundation Series (which is gonna be un-featured soon), there is no other 20th century popular fiction featured articles... so i'd like to invite editors of this page, who are trying to get something in the same genre featured, to comment on this article: The Illuminatus! Trilogy. its another cult sci-fi novel that has been quite influential in the last few decades, although it doesnt have as many "multimedia" adaptations so the article concentrates more on the book & its themes. its up for peer review before FAC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Illuminatus%21_Trilogy. any comments in that peer review welcome. Zzzzz 15:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

thx to everyone who contributed to or commented on this article in the past few weeks. this article is now up for "featured article" status. please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy to vote Support or Oppose with your comments. Zzzzz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Military reading lists

From reading (and re-reading) the introduction it seems clear that the reading lists for the US military academies are different from that of the armed forces they produce - fair enough but a little confusing if you do not take this as a basic premise - perhaps someone could clean this up. Also the article on United States military academies states that there are either five or six academies rather than the four this article refers to. Zarboki 13:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your latter comment: There are five academies: the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. There also is a tendency in some quarters to classify some non-federal military schools, such as VMI or the Citadel, as United States military academies. These lesser institutions really do not merit that distinction. (Yeah; I went to Canoe U, like RAH. Does it show???) ;)Chesty95 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in the "Militarism" section?

The section about militarism, contains this:

""Starship troopers are not half so glorious sitting on their butts polishing their weapons for the tenth time for lack of anything else to do."[38] Of course, that's a stupid comment since people can't get dull novels about weapon-cleaning published, but Panshin sounds like you'd think someone who is a 'veteran of the peacetime military' would sound. And are you _realy_ a veteran if you only served in peacetime?"

The editor is clearly personally attacking the comments and person of Panshin. And is this article really the right place to discuss who is a "veteran" and who is not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.237.196 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the ranting being mentioned above a while ago. Jkelly 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't of course, speak for other nations, but in the US, yes, as a matter of fact, if you served in a peacetime military, you ARE considered a veteran (i.e., you are eligible for VA benefits, 5-points benefit on civil service applications, and to join most of the veteran's organizations).

'Capsule Trooper' and French Foreign Legion?!

Does anyone know why the article claims that the MI are compared to the FFL? The book never says anything about that and I don't see any specific connection beyond what you might expect for any elite military organization.

My best guess is because service in the French foreign legion grants French citizenship, much like service in the novel grants citizenship. Justpedersen 22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a reference to the recruits singing the Legion's March on a hike, as well as The Marine's Hymm and a few other marches. Also, there was the joke Rico told about the cap trooper who visited Napoleon's Tomb (So? Where were his drops?). I think it is probably more accurate to compare the MI to Marines, inasmuch as they operate much the way amphibious troops do: sail/fly on navy vessels, storm a beach/planet, and then get pulled off so that someone else can handle occupation. This is the traditional MO of Marines. Also, in the movie, there is even a reference to the MI (after the bar fight) as "jarheads", a common epithet for Marines in the other services. Chesty95 03:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a reference for calling the MI 'Cap(sule) Troopers'? That term is never used in the book, but it does refer to the caps that the troopers wear on their heads a number of times.

Rico does describe the MI as cap-troopers, because of the capsules in which they are launched out of the ships. I'll try to get the page number from the book.Mikereichold 13:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that Heinlein was in favor of nuclear fallout. If we are talking about the lack of radiation on Sanctuary (p217 in GK Hall large type ed) then Rico this is 'scare talk' and that he is happy without mutation. I submit that we can't go from this to a claim of 'fallout is good!'.

If we are talking about Panshin's analysis of this part of the book, the farthest that we can go would be that Heinlein felt that nuclear testing was necessary. Fallout is a consequence of that, not a benefit. Besides, shouldn't that be in the Heinlein article?

Please sign your messages. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see Rico's comment about "fallout being good" as evidence that he is a faulty character and that the work could be read as a satirical exploration of the faults of militarism, jingoism, and nationalism. (There are other examples, where his math/thinking don't add up.) Does anyone else hold that view? I don't know enough about RAH's political views beyond those expressed in the novel. Thanks Mikereichold 13:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein was not satirical about this. Midgley 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The book is fairly clear on these things. The Legion Étrangere was a surprise to me in this article, and given the basic ideas of 1)Terran Federation, 2) World government and 3) Foreign Legion, it really doesn't seem to fly at all. The term cap-tropper is used in the book - an interpolated anecdote of a cap-trooper being shown Napoleon's toomb, and saying "So, where were his jumps" was one of them, there were others. I'm not exactly quoting, this is from memory: "Sanctuary was like Earth, but retarded. The background level of radioactivity was low, and unless the colonists wanted to look the same when everyone else was sporting tentacles, perhaps they'd have to do something about it like setting off some old fashoined dity bombs in the atmosphere. Me, I might leave my descendants 10 000 years on to worry about such things. " Compare and contrast if you like with Haldeman's Forever War, where soldiers could reasonably worry about meeting their descendants of 10k up the line... if they survived. Heinlein was thoughtful about a lot of things, and a reaction of assuming that a mention of something means he was wholly in favour or wholly against is spuriously crisp. Rico was also thoughtful, although an element of the book was of his thoughtfulness being developed via the delayed action of his high school H&MP classes, maturation while serving, and then the graduate-level H&MP - a required course - at officer training school. A sub-theme of this is that you can't stay still, you have to accept change, use it.... Midgley 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Awkward section

The following sentence under the Plot heading I found awkward. Further, the parenthetical statement has an ambiguous use of "his".

Dubois serves as a stand-in for Heinlein throughout the novel, and delivers what is probably the book's most famous soliloquy on violence, and how it "has settled more issues in history than has any other factor."[8] Fleet Sergeant Ho's monologues examine the nature of military service, and his anti-military tirades appear in the book primarily as a contrast with Dubois. (It is later revealed that his rants are calculated to scare off the weaker applicants).

I'll edit the sentence, but I'm not sure that "his rants" are Dubois' rants. Are they? I haven't read the book. — Vijay 02:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vrkaul, Indeed the rants are Ho's, though I think the term rant is nor quite right. Ho also explains that the reason he never wears his leg (and arm?) prosetheses when he's is on duty at the induction desk (in MAnila, I would guess) is to put recruits in a contemplative mood before he administers the oath. Federal policy is to make service not at all psychologically easy. And to provide every opportunity to drop out up to the point of graduation from boot camp.

You ought to read the book, it's rather better than this article suggests and more thought provoking. RAH was indeed arguing for the military, but specifially for the civic virtue of being willing to defend the commonweal, not fro any virtue in the military itself. In fact, federal service might be a s test dummy for cold weather gear (actualy mentioned), and if successfully completed gave one the right to vote just as much as Navy or MI service would. It's interesting that RAH chose something rather like the Marines (US Naval infantry) instead of the actual Navy (his branch of service before being invalided out).

There are also some passing comments on evolution and the 'vritues' our species has which makes it successful (hint, intelligence wasn't the key as RAH tells it; rather it was how that intelligence was used). ww 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, a lot of this article has poor grammar when in comes to comma splices. I'm just now going to sleep, and I'll look at it tomorrow. If any grammar fiend wants to clean it up, though, I certainly wouldn't complain! : ) — Vijay 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's Grammar Nazi to you. Ten strokes (it's Starship Troopers after all) with a wet noodle for being such a Grammar WIMP (not Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, either). But you're right. ww 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Juan Rico Filipino?

After Rico graduates from Officer's Candidate School, he uses a Taglog phrase roughly translated as home is where the heart is. After speaking Taglog, the other character (Angel I think) asks him what language it is, which Rico mentions is Taglog, that his family speaks around the house. They may live in Argentina, but they speak Taglog. It seems to me that this fact is important to place in the character description of Juan Rico as filipino and not Argentinian.

I agree. There was also the reference early in the book to the MacArthur Center where he saw the neodog. I saw this as a reference to General Douglas MacArthur who led the liberation of the Phillipines. I got the impression that his family lived in the Phillipines, and that his mother was just visiting a relative in BA when she got killed. (I also think he spoke in Tagalog to Carmen at the beginning, when they went to enlist. I didn't recognize the language in the text, so I assumed it must be.) My guess is that they just changed it for the movie, and that is what the article referenced.Chesty95 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From Chapter 10, "I thought that both my parents were dead — since Father would never send Mother on a trip that long by herself." Whereever their home was, it was considered to be a long trip to get to Buenos Aires (where Rico's mother died.) The string 'america' (any capitalization) occurs six times in the book, three times as 'North America' and three times in 'Russo-Anglo-American Alliance' ... all refer to historical events. It does appear that Camp Currie is in what is now Canada (Named for a Canadian, and is said to be located on the 'northern prairies'), but that doesn't imply much about where Rico is from. --Noren 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another quote, from Chapter 13: (referring to the naming of ships)

I said, "There ought to be one named Magsaysay."

Bennie said, "What?"

"Ramón Magsaysay," I explained. "Great man, great soldier — probably be chief of psychological warfare if he were alive today. Didn’t you ever study any history?

"Well," admitted Bennie, "I learned that Simón Bolívar built the Pyramids, licked the Armada, and made the first trip to the Moon."

"You left out marrying Cleopatra."

"Oh, that. Yup. Well, I guess every country has its own version of history."

It's clear that the country he's referring to is the Philippines. --Noren 07:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

<--- In discussions with various folks of various perspectives on this book, I've had this controversy several times. It seems that all people remember is that Rico mere died in BA (Buenos Aires). They didn't note the Tagalog comments here and there, nor the Magsaysay comment. I myself think it means Scribner's was even dumber for having rejected it. True, they lost RAH for their list (bad enough), but they also managed not to notice that this is not really an adventure book, but a novel of ideas in some serious sense. I've heard rumors about personal dislike for RAH on the part of a Scribner's editor (female?) which was returned by RAH. Anyone know anything more than that? ww 07:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== Father objected ==Listen, and let me tell you what you are going to do -- because you want to. In the first place this family has stayed out of politics and cultivated its own garden for over a hundred years -- I see no reason for you to break that fine record. "

early on should do. Recall why his father joined the MI himself, later. Midgley 13:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) There is a lot about this, but "

== IIRC Rico speaks at some point about a ´hero of his country´, Aguinaldo. The only national hero with that name I know of is Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino famous for fighting the Spanish, then the Americans.

At the very end of the novel, it is said in so many words that the Rico family is Filipino in origin. What is not said, is where they were dwelling at the time of Johnnie's graduation and enlistment.--Svartalf 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but given that it is at least strongly implied at Juan's father runs a well-established business (which he eventually sells to join the MI), and the "cultivated its own garden" comment implies stability, it is very likely that they are still in the Philippines. The "MacArthur Center", odds are, is in the Philippines.--Wehwalt 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A standin for Heinlein ....

Lt Col Dubois was a standin for Heinlein - but so was Juan Rico.

Heinlein appeares in various novels, in different guises, as old Heinlein, (Dubois, Jubal Harshaw) and as young Heinlein, here Rico. Midgley 14:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler end?

We should also mark where the spoiler ends using {{endspoiler}} template. Can anybody identify the point? þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

10%??

Seems like with only 10% of the recruits finishing bootcamp, they Terrans were bound to lose the ward, versus today where even criminals can become soldiers because we're stretched so thin. Sure, it makes it sound like the 'best-of-the-best' badass academy, but the bugs apparently don't have such requirements. Is this yet another thinly veiled jab at the US enemies he faced decades ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.52.1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gideon's band. Midgley 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

what you are missing here is the major increase in firepower associated with the powered armor. When each individual soldier can effectively control a square kilometer with fire power equivalent to a reinforced platoon sized combined arms team (figure the equivalent of two M1 Abrams Tank plus four M2/M3 Bradleys plus a fire support section of 120 mm mortars or 105 mm howitzers)INCLUDING 'peewee nukes'....then the quality factor starts to make more sense.

DocKrin (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The metals used in Plato's Republic

The following was said in the "Starship Troopers" Wikipedia article:

"Despite this explicit denouncement of Plato’s republic, ironically the political system imagined by Heinlein mirrors the Republic in many ways. For example, Heinlein mirrors the caste system used by Plato and divides people in society into three distinct classes; ‘copper’ civilians, ‘silver’ guards and ‘gold’ voting citizens"

A pedantic point needs to be made concerning Plato's "Republic". I don't believe Plato was thinking of pure copper when he wrote the "Republic". Here's the relevant quote from "The Republic of Plato" as translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford, pg. 106, Chapter X, [III. 414]:

"It is true, we shall tell our people in this fable, that all of you in this land are brothers; but the god who fashioned you mixed gold in the composition of those among you who are fit to rule, so that they are of the most precious quality; and he put silver in the Auxillaries; and iron and brass in the farmers and craftsmen."

A point often made by classicists commenting on Plato's "Republic" is that brass when it is of the right alloy and properly polished will look like gold (Plato implied that the people of the lower classes could be made to think that they were as good as the higher or "Guardian" class due to their superficial appearance). In the ancient world, bronze and brass coins were often deliberately alloyed to look like gold coins. Pure copper can never be made to look like pure gold so this language distinction is important.

Egg plant 16:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Literary criticism

This is a really good article about one of my favorite books. My only criticism of the article is that the literary criticism subsection is leaning POV b/c it only includes comments from people who dislike the book. None of the other sections under the controvery grouping fail to include supporting analysis; only this one subsection. Can anyone stir up some supporting criticism for this section?--Alabamaboy 16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Influenced Gundam

I read in the translator's notes to the original Mobile Suit Gundam novels published by Del Rey that Gundam was somewhat influenced by Starship Troopers while Tomino was writing it. Does anyone have any info on this?

24.15.243.244

it's not hard to see the influence. The zaku's appear to be an interpretation of the Mobile infantary's powered armour..

I think the name "mobile" suit gundam is a reference in itself.

Starship troopers was a large influence on Sci-fi anime of the 80's.

MOSPEADA (third part of robotech) took a lot of themes from starship troopers.

Votoms is another obviously ST influence anime, so is Aim for the top: gunbuster. If you replace Noriko (the heroine of Gunbuster) with juan rico, you basically have the exact same story.

Military service

This article is a featured article now so I'm not going to wade in and edit though I think something that warrants mentioning is comparing the system in ST to that in the many nations today with compulsary military service- ST being actually less militaristic and 'nicer' then them as you are given the choice to do your service or not--Josquius 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fallout 2

How is Fallout influenced by Starship troopers? Fallout is post-apocalyptic with no aliens. Yes it does have power armor but it a staple of Sci-Fi. --141.157.104.155 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple, it isn't. People are reading too much into things on that one. It'e entirely possible that the creators of Fallout may have never even heard of Starship Troopers. The concept of powered armor has become ubiquitous in science fiction. It's not a sure-fire indication of influence by Heinlein any more. Kasreyn 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed fallout 2 from influences.--151.196.26.205 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Currie

Anyone know if Camp Arthur Currie from the novel is a reference to Canadian General Arthur Currie? ---- iansmcl May 4, 2006

Currie was also the name of a Canadian Victoria Cross holder in the Second World War (Major Dave Currie of the South Alberta Regiment). Could refer to either - though Currie Barracks is an actual location in Calgary.Michael Dorosh 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fairly clear. Actually, isn't Camp Currie in Canada? I would agree with including the reference, as the book is filled with references to actual military figures and I am unaware of any other armigerous Arthur Curries of note. --Dunkelza 01:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was fairly certain that it was him. And I do believe that it is in Canada (in the Rockies, if I remember correctly), unfortunately I've lent my copy of the book out so I cannot check. ---- iansmcl

As I quoted above, Camp Arthur Currie was "On the northern prairies", not the Rockies(first sentence of Chapter 3.) Rico complains initially of the cold- "I was used to a warm climate; it seemed to me that the North Pole was just five miles north of camp and getting closer." That's clearly hyperbole, but it presumably was fairly far north- he later compares it to an analogous camp in Siberia. It seems clear that this is in what is now Canada. As to who the camp is named for, Rico says in the book, commenting on the amount of running they did, "I never did find out who Currie was, but he must have been a trackman." The string "canad" occurs only twice in the book, however, once when Rico is dropped in "a primitive area of the Canadian Rockies" as part of his survival training, and once in describing a different camp- Camp Sergeant Spooky Smith was located in the Canadian Rockies. You may be confusing the locations of the two camps. --Noren 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember also, they are given leave in Vancouver, though Rico and his buddies unwisely go on to Seattle and get into a brawl. And I think that they have to do a survival course in the Rockies.--Wehwalt 20:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the "trackman" line described as an in-joke, since Gen. Currie was rather portly. —wwoods 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Catch-22

It's not really our place to say whether Catch-22 was an able refutation or not. If we want to include something like this in the article it would need a source, otherwise it's just original research.

'It's also worth noting that Starship Troopers came out one year before Joseph Heller's book Catch-22, which, although not (technically) science fiction, can be considered an able refutation of the ideology which produced Heinlein's book.'

(above pasted from article page) MilesVorkosigan 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Questionable reference

"In any case, the Arachnids are clearly not stupid (as Rico says, "Stupid races don't build spaceships!")[50] and in several places the novel expresses admiration for the efficiency of the Arachnid species, despite the fact that the Arachnids are supposedly an evil race."

The "despite" seems pointless; there's no contradiction in admiring an evil race's efficiency.

The whole sentence also seems nonresponsive to the criticisms it was intended to respond to. The criticism that the bugs may be killed because they lack minds and souls doesn't mean that the *race* is supposed to be stupid; it means that the *individual bug soldiers* are supposed to be stupid, or at least limited in their thought processes compared to a human, and that therefore killing one doesn't raise any of the moral issues of killing a person. Intelligence within the bug race as a whole (for instance, in brain bugs) which doesn't carry over to individual soldiers isn't relevant. Ken Arromdee 17:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken this out. Ken Arromdee 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"...a 2Xth century unit..." What is this? Is the century unknown? Clarityfiend 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Racism section

The following POV, original research, and weasel wording was removed:

"...who are viewed by some as stand-ins for the Japanese, Chinese, or Russians"

Sez you. Original research.

"The terms may be considered similar to Kraut, soldiers' slang for Germans, possibly used by Heinlein himself during his World War II naval service."

POV slur against Heinlein. Unsourced speculation.

"; this would seem to contradict accusations of racism against Asians."

Likely correct but definitely original research. We only report other people's conclusions here, we do not make our own. Kasreyn 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought that this had been worked out during the WP:FAC, but I guess not. Jkelly 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was reinserted afterwards, because I don't remember seeing it until just now. Kasreyn 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sergeant Zim and Operation Royalty

"Originally career ship's sergeant, Juan Rico's boot camp instructor and company commander at Camp Arthur Currie. Eventually, he was the Company First Sergeant of Rico's unit and acted below his rank to be Rico's Platoon Sergeant during Operation Royalty. Zim took the initiative to raid an Arachnid "bughole", and captured the first brain bug. He was given a field commission of brevet captain with the permanent rank of first lieutenant."

As far as I am aware (and have read the book constantly, many tens of times) Zim is not the sergeant under Rico who goes down alone to capture a Brain, according to the book, that sergeant is promoted, and then "Captain Blackstone told me I was getting the best Sergeant in the fleet..... his name is Zim"

Everytime I have read the book, I have always read that as saying that Zim arrived after Op. Royalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 10:11, 12 June 2006

Isn't it the wrap-up of a delayed narrative surprise? I don't have the book in front of me, but I recall reading that last bit as a reflection on Blackstone's rejiggering the personnel for the Royalty landing to support the inexperienced "Lt." Rico, not the post-operation promotions. I remember this because it was quite noticeable how, throughout the operation, Heinlein had Rico refer to the sergeant as "my platoon sergeant", when every other person was mentioned by name. I couldn't help but think while reading that there was a reason Rico wasn't mentioning the man's name, and that expectation paid off with "his name is Zim". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. The line is, 'Captain Blackstone had told me I was getting "the best sergeant in the fleet" (emph added). And this could only have been before the operation, since Rico was wounded and never rejoined Blackstone's company. —wwoods 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then it explicitly says,

"And casualties— ... I didn't know how many more there might have been before Zim got them to the surface, ..."

"... —and always Sergeant Zim. Brevet Captain Zim, now, with the permanent rank of First Lieutenant."

—wwoods 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed now. Re-read the book again keeping this in mind, I can see how it works. Often read this late at night but not much of an excuse, worryingly illiterate of me. --SGGH 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Social attitudes.

The social problems described in the book as the downfall of XXth Century nations, some similarities at least to some of the social problems befalling certainly the UK "Gangs of children, armed... roaming in packs... not safe to go out at night..." etc. Should this be picked up on? Or is it too POV and unsupported by facts?

--SGGH 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Camp Spooky Smith

Since there were a couple of Curries that the first camp might have been named for, I've always wondered about "Spooky" Smith.

there have been 18 Smith/Smythes who have received the Victoria Cross, with one, Earnest "Smokey" Smith (WWII) being a colorful enough character to have caught RAH's eye...seems that the chap made corporal and was busted back to private some 9 times before his promotion stuck after his VC. He used a PIAT to knock out a German tank at close range during a contested river crossing in Italy, and then stayed in contact with the enemy for some time, saving the bridgehead.

While there were many Smiths who received the Medal of Honor (most before WWI), about the only one who might fit would be Maynard H. "Snuffy" Smith, a US AAC ball turret gunner who helped keep his B-17 flying during a mis placed raid on Brest.

Because of the Infantry connection of "Smokey" Smith, I figure that he's the most likely one that the camp was named after. DocKrin (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)