Talk:Starship Troopers/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: N/M.  Done. Palm_Dogg 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original title of book

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

message: 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)
replies: text: For someone concerned about the "coming failure of democracy", you seem pretty supportive of compulsory reading... :)  Kaisershatner 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Guess I should have written highly recommended instead. Kim Bach 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I think this is a high-quality article, but... 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books, films, and games influenced by Starship Troopers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments, FA?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, OK, you win.  I yield. :) Palm_Dogg 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hu's on first?  What's on second? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ender's game 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Starship Troopers --> Starship Troopers (novel) 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Korean War references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comparison with Heinlein's other work

message: 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)
thread_title: cut some material about movies and comics

message: 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)
thread_title: Shippey article

message: 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)
thread_title: 20th century popular fiction featured articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Military reading lists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Please sign your messages. Thank You! --Siva1979Talk to me 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  'Capsule Trooper' and French Foreign Legion?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A standin for Heinlein .... 

message: We should also mark where the spoiler ends using  template. Can anybody identify the point? þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler end? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 10%??

message: 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)
thread_title:  The metals used in Plato's Republic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Literary criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Military service 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fallout 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catch-22 

message: "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)
replies: text: I've taken this out. Ken Arromdee 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable reference 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  I thought that this had been worked out during the WP:FAC, but I guess not.  Jkelly 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was reinserted afterwards, because I don't remember seeing it until just now.  Kasreyn 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Social attitudes. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Camp Spooky Smith