Talk:Starship Troopers

message: Look all I've watched is the movies, but I was kinda surprised when I looked this up and found that the positions were supposedly legitimate interpretations of the author's views. Is this established anywhere? I don't understand it, it looks a lot like a Orwellian distopia caused by social conditions and an external threat much like the zerg from starcraft. I thought it was supposed to be a satire of fascism and militarism... am I wrong? Plaidman (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. The book is a serious novel and can be read as a political treatise. The film, while is it actually good at keeping some of the themes of the book, is very much a satire of American militarism and society. The book isn't a dystopia, it's just a different world to the one we live in, a world where nothing is given and everything is earned. The book is a good read, I encourage you to read it. So in answer to your question, and in the interest of the article, the article is about the book which is definitely not satire, whereas the films are. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial title of the script for the movie was "Bughunt on Antares 5" or some such; the references to Heinlein's novel and the title were added ... who knows why? Some of the character's names are retained, and little else. The director supposedly read only the first chapter of the book, put it aside saying he didn't want to make a coming-of-age film, and ignored it. htom (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. You might consider adding something about this in the article about the book. I just checked the page for the movie and it has a blurb about it, if you wanted to draw sources and words from it. Personally having read the wikipedia page I do not think I would enjoy the book for ideological reasons. Thank you for responding promptly and thank you for your work on wikipedia. Plaidman (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Material about the movie belongs in the article on the movie, not the book. The ideas in the book are not affected in any way by the movie which had the book's name attached to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: What is "dystopian" about the book? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

text: It is consistently amazing to me how people utterly mischaracterize literally everything in the society RAH has described -- Note that this particularly includes Verhoeven. It's certainly not, in any regard, "Fascist". Anyone reading that claim need only look at the definition of "Fascist" and see how not a word of it applies to RAH's completely democratic society, which strongly promotes free speech and free assembly. It's also certainly not "Orwellian", as Plaidman has suggested. In fact, our current society is far more Orwellian than anything described in ST. WE have a huge amount of the machinery of a surveillance state, We have the media routinely changing "events" to match whatever viewpoint they -- and the government -- are looking to promote... We have suppression of contrarian opinions by many of our communication constructs, And strong evidence that at least some of it was driven by government edict. We have people of contrarian opinions being thrown in jail and socially ostracized by a mob, and they' have openly argued in multiple venues for actual incarceration for same. None of this kind of "Orwellianism" is ever suggested in any regard by RAH in ST. -- Not a whit of it. -- OBloodyHell (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you sure this isn't a satire?

message: There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie. 
65.103.122.211 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already in the article.  Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie

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

message: Starship Troopers March 8, 2006 Might be a good idea to revisit the old article and revise the content to remove so much focus on "Controversy". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific?  The Controversy section hasn't changed all that much, it has the same four subsections and is of approximately the same length as in that older version.  --Noren (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Controversy section is too long -- right now it's almost one third of the article (34420 characters by my count in the article, 10891 of those are in the controversy section, a rate 31.6%).  I got it -- some folks don't like the book.  It seems hardly worth this much space to say that. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The controversy is about Heinlein's treatment of matters important in the real world, which are fundamental to the book's premises, and which it was written specifically to address - he was doing more than just writing a piece of entertaining fiction. That the controversy is considerable, which the size of the section merely reflects, demonstrates his success in creating arguments of intellectual weight about important considerations, whether or not one agrees with his own conclusions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The biggest issue I find is that the overall article cites a lot of rather clearly liberal viewpoints of the novel, and often I consider them almost certainly creating strawmen and not providing legitimate claims. The whole article needs to be reviewed for a considerable revamp to balance out and remove politically biased claims about what RAH wrote and why. The stuff by King, in particular, blatantly represents his highly doubtful assertions of what RAH was saying. --- OBloodyHell (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: If I may suggest, the two-volume "Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century, Vol. 1 & 2" are a good source. It is created from RAH's own correspondence, and certainly covers a lot of what he said about ST. If you want to discover what RAH actually believed, it's a decent source of learning. Mind you, I met Gregory Benford at DragonCon before he had his stroke, and he knew RAH at least somewhat, when he was a young physicist, and he didn't think any of the biographies really captured RAH's actual persona... they all got some aspects of it, but the writers missed key elements, according to Benford. For what that may be worth. I do think the one above does have a lot of info about RAH and ST. -- OBloodyHell (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of article when passed as FA 

message: There is a discussion on this book in particular, and on any military reading list books from military academies and training facilities in general at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#RFC:_Does_the_book.2C_Starship_Troopers.2C_fit_in_our_criteria_for_inclusion
(the topic was started on 23 December 2009 - so if it not there, check the archives).
76.66.197.17 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Navy, for example, Starship Troopers is on the recommended list for Junior Enlisted personnel. The above linked Ft. Benning list starts at an NCO rank and goes up, so it's entirely plausible that the book is still on a reading list intended for junior enlisted Army personnel.  That being said, I couldn't find such an official list, so I agree that it should not be in the article at this time due to being unsourced.  Does anyone have a link or copy of a current Army list for junior enlisted persons? --Noren (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I read Starship Troopers as a teen but didn't understand it until I did time in the US Navy.  I can't speak of an official reading list for junior enlisted as I never saw any such, but here is my take on Heinlein's message:  The franchise, and the responsible exercise thereof, should be restricted to those who have shown by their actions to put the welfare of their society above their own personal wants and desires.  I don't find this at all militaristic and, having seen the elephant myself I find myself almost always at odds with people who want to bomb hell out of [your choice of current bad guy].  It is also the case (and explicitly stated in the novel) that 95 percent of Federal service is non-military.  But even that service is obnoxious enough and difficult enough that you are reminded of what it took to get the franchise, and why you should exercise it wisely.  And, although this is a personal opinion only, and a biased (veteran) one at that, I like that idea.  I have also read The Forever War, consider it a good read, and consider it as a compare-and-contrast exercise as to why you should always think for yourself instead of simply following orders.52.124.75.209 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

text: It's back off the USMC list . It has been included on the CNO Reading list as a recommended, but is not an essential reading any longer   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner {{tl|WPMILHIST}} 

message: Article is too long and needs complete revising. Link to: Johnnie Rico states he is a Filipina, the text suggests an Argentine or some other S.A.. All references to movies and games should be literary removed and most elements should be placed in present-tense as fiction. <removed link to copyright violation> Ncsr11
:Rico does not state he is a Filipina; he does clearly state that he is a Filipino; and there is nothing whatsover in the book to suggest that this is false. There is no justification I can see for the removal of references to the existence of games, movies, etc. And we don't take kindly to people who insert links to copyright violations here. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For a more detailed discussion of where this is mentioned in the book, see this archived talk page discussion.--Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry

message: This section is of long standing, is well-footnoted, and is well-balanced. There is no justification that I have ever seen presented for its persistent removal. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While I personally think the allegations are generally made by people who haven't actually read and understood the book, they are indeed common enough accusations. Plus it is referenced and has been in the article for a long time. In fact the section, with some alterations, appeared in the Featured Article version of the article back in 2006. Canterbury Tail talk 00:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back, I must agree, too. The only excuse I can offer for my undoing the addition is that my memory incorrectly placed that section in the movie's article, not in the book's, but the allegations were around long before the movie was thought of (and may have been part of the director's misunderstanding of the book itself.) Sorry for participating in a revert squabble; the section should stay. htom (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an Allegations of Allegedness section? An Allegations of Allegationalism section? Isn't Sulu enough Phillipinos in the Federation?
As needs to be done once in a while, I've chopped large amounts from this section that are OR defenses of the book without any sources. It would be good to get notable defenses of the book with cites and include them in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allegations of fascism" 

message: I am wondering what connection the quote "correct morals arise from knowing what man is—not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be." has with anti-communism. It is not clear who he is referring to and I see no specific mention, unlike the other quotes given in the same section (such as to do with Marx and the Labour ToV) to communist theory. I have removed it, maybe too boldly, until someone can explain it. It seems a bit like original research to me, because unlike the other quotes, it isnt obvious what he is trying to say in relation to communism. ValenShephard (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  There is no clear indication that Heinlein is talking about communism in this passage.  I really doubt Heinlein was inclined to describe communists as "do-gooders". --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your quick response. I wonder if anyone knows what he is actually referring to in that quote? It seems very diffuse though, so I guess it could be interpreted many ways. ValenShephard (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Whatever it means, wikieditors shouldn't be quoting primary sources to advance interpretations of a text. We need to rely on notable commentators who have done so. Ashmoo (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also true. --Trovatore (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I just wanted to see some way of including what I removed, I dont like simply cutting an article. ValenShephard (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an understandable sentiment not to want to destroy the work of others, but unfortunately I don't think it's one that helps us build a quality encyclopedia.  If we're sentimental about removing clutter we wind up with cluttered prose.  This is a particular danger in designed-by-committee type projects. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't particularly want it included, I removed it after all. What do you mean this is a danger in designed by committee type projects? ValenShephard (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just what I said.  A lot of people contribute a little bit, and no single person is responsible for working it into a coherent narrative.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Of course "Starship troopers" is racist. Remember Untermensch, Yellow Monkey, Rats, Infidels, Nonpersons, Second-class citizens, Lives unworthy of life and other forms of Dehumanization. All more than enough to support war. Is Heinlein putting us in front of the mirror? Aldo L (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of discussion is off-topic here.  Talk pages are for discussions of changes (or proposed changes) to the article, not discussions of the subject matter of the article per se. --Trovatore (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I am sorry. What I am trying to say is that this, the relationship between war and racism, was debated a hundred times before. The new debate here should be whether Heinlein himself was racist (something that I have never heard before) or just his opus. If the latter is the case, I think that it would constitute a non issue. War is war: it is racist, it is cruel, it is immoral, it is unholy, etc. I don't see any controversy here. If I am allowed to, I would like to introduce two options: we may consider the section "Allegations of racism" redundant, or we may look for more references that explain the inclusion of racist material into "Starship troopers". Aldo L (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

text: Allegations? But will it develop in to actual criminal charges and arrests, though? What are the conseqences to the allegations? Ender's Game got banned from many 10th grade reading lists and it turns out that book was only about the author's hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina in much the same way as Something Wicked This Way Comes (novel) and The Martian Chronicles was about Waukegan, Illinois. Any good prosecuter knows if you really want something to stick, you've got to come up with something a lot better than mere allegations. We all need to be super-duper extra cautious of anything having to do with 'allegations of utopianism'. After all, the U.F.P.'s shipyards are based over Utopia Planitia. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of racism 

message: Aside from the cliché usage of saying the novel "has attracted controversy and criticism", the source in question is a review of the film, not the novel, with some personal reminiscences of the book in the review from a reviewer who read it 38 years ago.  This should not go in the lead section unless it can be shown that the book actually has significant controversy and criticism from established critics. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article shows this to be true, I see no reason to link to the Salon article in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and criticism 

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

message: The author mentions at the begining of Chapter Three, that Rico is sent to basic at Camp Currie 
on the northern prairies of Alberta, Canada assigned to the Third Training Regiment, as a bivouced 
camp. Similarly, Alberta's primary infantry training grounds of the Canadian Army to that region is CFB Wainwright on the northern prairies in Denwood, Alberta. 
The primary infrantry to that region would be the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's 
Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI) under the 1 Canadian Mechanized 
Brigade Group (1CMBG) based at Lancaster Park, CFB Edmonton composed of two rifle companies (airborne and mountain), a fire support company, and a command and support company. Because Camp Currie is bivouced it could be intended as being anywhere a few miles north of Edmonton. When Canada mobilized for Korea and NATO its three traditional Regular Force regiments 
(The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 
and Royal 22e Régiment) expanded into three battalions of the "Mobile Strike Force". The author's intentions is that Rico's first outfit is "Willie's Wildcat's", Company K, Third Regiment, First Mobile Infantry Division, Federal Service. -August 29, 2011
:Sounds like original research to me. You don't know Heinlein's intentions, and he may have just made things up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual Military Assignment

message: In terms of military science fiction, despite the controversies regarding Robert A. 
Heinlein's, Starship Troopers (1958), at conventions for a number of years science 
fiction authors routinely cited Joe Haldeman's, The Forever War (1974) as the 'perfect' 
military science fiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.3.20 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe is a combat veteran with the shrapnel to prove it (still sets off alarms when he goes through scanners), and wrote Forever War in part as an answer to Starship Troopers. But what is your point? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Haldeman's ''The Forever War'' (1974)

message: An interesting fact: in the Chinese translation (or some Chinese translations), "Chinese Hegemony" is changed to "Japanese Hegemony". Is this worth a mention perhaps? I wonder if any other changes has been made, or if other translations take similar liberties. 114.91.209.211 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mainland Chinese have publishing propaganda guidelines in that nothing negative may be stated about the party. Ncsr11 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Hegemony in China 

message: Why is the paragraph treating James Gifford's excellent essay, on Heinlein's claims about the "mostly civil service" nature of Federal Service versus the actual textual evidence, placed in the "Allegations of fascism" section?  Whether most electors are military veterans is only weakly related to fascism in any sense of the word that I understand.  Wouldn't it make more sense in the "Allegations of militarism" section? --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. But it does flow from the Allegations of fascism section, so I don't see offhand how to fix this. Do you (or anyone else) want to try? I also added David Dyer-Bennet's similar argument re the veteran franchise controversy. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning of Gifford essay 

message: In the section "Military history, traditions, and military science" the text implies that Sir Arthur Currie commanded the Canadian Corps during the second world war.  In fact he held that post during the first world war.
128.115.27.10 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history section error 

message: This article has been a Featured Article since 2006 and is not as up to snuff to today's standards. One notable issue it has it is the lack of sourcing. One example of this is in the "Military history, traditions, and military science" section. Another issue is has is how its written. Feels like something out of Sparknotes. "The raid itself, one of the few instances of actual combat in the novel, is relatively brief" is an example of how the prose is that good. And finally there are  problems with its structure as there are one line paragraphs in it. GamerPro64 18:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems that need addressing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Starship Troopers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090514064954/http://www.salon.com:80/col/shoa/1997/11/13shoa.html to http://www.salon.com/col/shoa/1997/11/13shoa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051028142830/http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/troopers_book_000610.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/troopers_book_000610.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204020629/http://www.latinoreview.com:80/news/a-new-invasion-starship-troopers-headed-for-a-remake-15525 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/a-new-invasion-starship-troopers-headed-for-a-remake-15525
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140315012841/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/109837989728062.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/109837989728062.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140315013912/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116821080895539.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116821080895539.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The story is set in a future society ruled by a world government dominated by a military elite"
It doesn't matter where this is sourced from ... it's wrong.
Service is not military. Case in point ... Carl, one of the first characters introduced in the novel when stating what he hopes to do for his service:
"Me?" Carl answered. "I'm no truck driver. You know me  Starside R & D, if they'll have me. Electronics"
Further a doctor carrying out an examination of the protagonist states
"But if you came in here in a wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe"
NOT military.
Yes ... due to the attack the need for military results in the vast majority of people going into military branches of Service. But prior to that attack a Fleet Sergeant says to Carl and Johnny
"But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right. It says that everybody, male or female, shall have his born right to pay his service and assume full citizenship but the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified K. P. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. Got any idea what it takes to make a soldier?"
Furthermore, the military do not control the government. A person does not become a citizen until they complete their service.
"Go career? Quite aside from that noise about a commission, did I want to go career? Why, I had gone through all this to get my franchise, hadn't I?  and if I went career, I was just as far away from the privilege of voting as if I had never enrolled because as long as you were still in uniform you weren't entitled to vote. Which was the way it should be, of course"
I suggest someone who is comfortable editing remove the clearly incorrect statement that the Terran Federation is military dominated.
203.129.29.87 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are based on your own analysis of the text, whereas our article needs to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Please see WP:YESPOV, and WP:NOR. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Personal experience is all well and good, but Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for information. The guidelines for Wikipedia:Reliable sources are clear and apply to all of us. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence second paragraph 

message: In regards to the film, did everyone take this 1997 thing and run with it? 1997 is repeated multiple times through this article, but the movie was released in 1999...
Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually every source I cited when I wrote this, and all of those that I double-checked just now, list 1997; and this includes IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. The others are , , , . Are you sure you are not mistaken? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Movie was definitely released in 1997, I recall watching it while at university. Anyway every source says 1997. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was really amazing when Entertainment Weekly had an issue in 1997 discussing the box office of a movie that wouldn't be released until 1999! --Noren (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear, I was just looking at the Starship Troopers article yesterday and it said 1999... Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out why, apparently the article was vandalized: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starship_Troopers_%28film%29&type=revision&diff=915954727&oldid=915878415 Glad to know I'm not going crazy, at least. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997? 

message: Yes, Heinlein does depict females as more likely to be good pilots. But Juan Rico is allowed to apply and is taken seriously when he does so. He's turned done, but with his grades in Mathematics it's hard to see how he could have made the cut, regardless of gender. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender of pilots 

message: There is a dispute about this sentence:
:The setting of the book has been described as dystopian, but it is presented by Heinlein as utopian; its leaders are shown as good and wise, and the population as free and prosperous.[6][20]
*[6] , which refers to "the military-ruled utopia of Starship Troopers".
*[20] 
Citation [6] does not support "The setting of the book has been described as dystopian" - it supports it having been described as utopian.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In passing, my reading of the book has never suggested that the setting could be viewed as a dystopia, but I suppose that different things are dystopian to different people. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the sentence in question is "particularly dystopian as this system may sound", which I read as him saying the setting sounds dystopian, but is presented as utopian. If that's insufficient basis, I'm willing to delete "described as dystopian". Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

text: *:Thanks , I assume that is Samuelson. I would not, personally, read it that as the book being "described as dystopian". They are noting that it may sound dystopian, which is a different thing. In short, I don't think that this supports "The setting of the book has been described as dystopian" either. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  utopian, not dystopian 

message: So some other guy using this IP vandalized this  article or so I heard, just wanted to pop in here to apologize for that. That’s all. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology, I guess. 

message: salon "states" things, writers defending Heinleins intent only "argue" their point. This is just one of many cases. 
The general take aeay here is that communist and anarchist commentators definitely represented the general beliefs of a majority of American readers in 1959. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bias here is palpable  

message: it seems like, if one person somewhere said it once, and the editor LIKES the perspective, we can write "commentators state" to establish a false consensus of all commentators based on that one source 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commentators" 

message: Didn't realize that there were countries whose police and soldiers don't engage in violent behaviour. Where are they exactly? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starship Troopers has been identified as being a part of a tradition in US science fiction that assumes that violent conflict and the militarization of society are inevitable and necessary 

message: i mean, just from the word count, which is kinda ridiculously balanced towards critics and commentators. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems like this article is about what people said about the book, and the boon itself needs a separate article.  

message: We don't actually need to rely on the cliff notes version or the Hollywood reporter review as primary sources, do we? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just say "do t write huge sections here and then confess that you haven't even read the book  

message: "despite the fifteen people worldwide we found who felt it was controversial...."
Seriously?!? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Despite the controversy... 

message: Is this acceptable on all articles or just here? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorized and "identified" are there just to make opinions come across as factual.  

message: its like readers are supposed to leave with the impression that NOBODY EVER disagreed with the opinions of salon or Booker&Thomas 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand how this article gets away with clearly presenting one side of the argument.  

message: "Commentators have argued that Heinlein's portrayal of aliens, as well as being a reference to people in communist countries, invokes the trope of a return to the frontier. The concept of the frontier includes a social-Darwinist argument of constantly fighting for survival, even at the expense of indigenous people or, in the case of Starship Troopers, of aliens" 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FD50:C857:AC27:E41F (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, apparently starship troopers is about space, space is a frontier, books about the frontier are racist towards indigenous people so starship troopers is about taking land from indigenous peoples.  

message: Seems like a few editors thought this page was about the movie. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FD50:C857:AC27:E41F (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article trying to use citations that refer to the DIRECTOR of the MOVIE version.  

message: is a juvenile executed at some point? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:B7C3:8292:B6D4:5367 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the book refer to or advocate capital punishment for juveniles? 

message: I don't think we need to mention Helldivers 2 here. Helldivers is obviously inspired by the movie, but the movie is so far divorced from the book, to the point it has nothing in common with it besides the name. I think that by mentioning Helldivers here we might be giving the reader the false impression that the book is in any way similar to Helldivers 2, or the movie that inspired it. Moreover, the source used does not mention the book and exclusively talks about the film. Binglederry (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helldivers 2 

message: Apologies if this isn't a good take here, but from an outside perspective the article seems to be quite too long for its subject? Compared to other articles about notable books, it seems like this one would well benefit from being shortened. Thoughts? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, speaking as one of the reviewers at the featured article candidature, I did not find the length excessive.  If you have specific areas of concern it would be best to point them out rather than just mention a general impression. Also I reverted your addition of an overview section to restore the standard lead style. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that I wrote the bulk of this and do not consider any material to be extraneous, I think it's worth pointing out that at ~7300 words it's a good bit outside the size range for which our guidelines recommend splitting or trimming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening article?