Wikipedia

Talk:Arthur C. Clarke/Archive 1

< Talk:Arthur C. Clarke
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 86.187.165.71 in topic Recent, validly sourced content about Clark's alleged pedophilia
Archive 1Archive 2

Pedophilia claims

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The claims of pedophilia made against Clarke should be mentioned here. They were big news a few years ago, and I've heard told that more cases arose which were not grabbed by the tabloids. I'm unsure of how to broach the subject without risking slander, however. Kricxjo 22:48, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Court document is best, then book, then reputable newspaper report. Don't add anything if you don't have at least one of those to cite, whether online or paper. It's not slander if your report is factually correct ("X accused Y of Z" may be true even if the accusation itself is false). Stan 00:44, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Done. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've read elsewhere that the allegations were eventually found to be false, but this wasn't picked up by the tabloids. I'd suggest doing a fair bit of research first on everything that happened and putting it together.

The allegations were indeed dismissed as false in 1998, and can be read about in the PlanetOut archive. All the wire services carried the report of the exoneration, but the fact that "the tabloids" didn't do so suggests that such an exoneration didn't serve their interests. jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be mentioned, and if it was exonerated, that be included as well. I had heard about Clarke's pedophilia and was wondering how that resolved -- and see nothing in the article at all about it. It was prominent enough that I think it deserves mention because it hit people's public consciousness of the subject. No reason we can't include both claims and exoneration to make things quite clear, but coming to the talk page and seeing just this isn't effective. — WCityMike (T | C) 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sunday Mirror was the first tabloid to make the claim that they recorded an interview with Clarke in which he stated that he had sex with boys at his home in Sri Lanka and that he had no idea how old they where. Clarke was then cleared by the deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, who said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm. Eventually the whole story ended up with Interpol critizing The Sunday Mirror for refusing to supply the tape. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150223.stm IMO, the story isn't worth spreading on Wikipedia is no more than a nasty rumour. On the subject of Clarke being gay. Clarke denies being homosexual. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,374388,00.html Clarke always gives the same puckish pro forma answer: "No, merely cheerful." To top if off, Clarke was actually once married. See the same guardian article "...He was married briefly to an American, Marilyn Mayfield, now dead, whom he met while diving in Florida in the 50s." Yes he does live in Sri Lanka, which may sound like a strange place for an old English man living alone, except for the fact that there are about another ten thousand Western litrature writers living there also. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)]

This is supposed to be an encylopedia. It is a *very* well-known fact that the Mirror started this hoo-hah and that Clarke was *not* knighted when he should have been. This has nothing to do with whether he is/was a pedophile, a homosexual, or even a little green alien. This is a fairly major happening in his recent life, I would say. The Robert A. Heinlein article has lots of info about his medical ups and downs and how they may have affected his writing. Wouldn't you say that a delayed knighthood is of equal importance in a *long*, supposedly NPOV article about a *very* well-known personage? Let's say that Ken Lay is found innocent of all charges against him in the Enron trial. Are we going to let a Ken Lay supporter edit the Wikipedia article about him so that all mention of the trial just *vanishes*? That's akin what you're trying to do here by removing this info. Hayford Peirce 04:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Edited out. By the end of this episode the evidence indicated nothing other than defamatory libel spun from whole cloth by a tabloid. It does not provide any significant information about Clarke, and there's a compelling interest in not perpetuating the report of the libel - unlike "he said she said" journalism, Wikipedia should be based on evidence. It's no better than using weasel words, e.g. "according to some critics..." and it's far worse, in the case of something for which removing the "according to..." clause would instantly convert the Wikipedia entry itself into a defamatory libel that would be liable for civil damages, probably of far greater magnitude than from any copyright infringement. A tabloid could print libel against anybody at all. That would not make the libel a significant aspect of the target's life. - Reaverdrop 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Clarke himself asked for the postponement of his knighthood to avoid embarassing the monarchy. Clearly something Rushdie hasn't the integrity to do.

Sexuality

Latest comment: 17 years ago32 comments11 people in discussion

Anyone who's read ACC's work since the early 1970's can't doubt he is bisexual. What's the quote from Imperial Earth (from memory, so probably not verbatim) "He [the central character] couldn't understand anyone who's sexuality was exclusively polarized in one direction or the other". Also see the 70's rewrite of 'Songs of Distant Earth' (not the original short story or the 80's novel, the extended short story with the 2-men-1-woman threesome. Central character was called Falcon I think). Even the pin-up Kumar from the 80's Songs novel "had slept with all of the girls and most of the boys in his agegroup". Of course, just because he writes about it doesn't mean he does it.. but for a unsentimental writer like Clarke it's telling that bisexuality forms such a staple ingredient. It never happened in Asimov novels!! It's not as if Clarke is socially innovative generally (eg Iain M Banks).

Incidentally, none of this is intended as a critisism. He's an old man living in a country where (I think) homosexual activity is illegal - I can understand why he doesn't want to rock the boat. 80.177.152.35 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Er he doesnt live in a country where homosexuality is illegal! Just to let you knowPubuman 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The man's sexuality is not relevant to the article. --Muugokszhiion 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to his life and thus to the article. Although he might simply see bisexuality as a preferable state to heterosexuality. Zeck 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant? Or perhaps you just wish people didn't talk about such things at all Muugokszhiion? A topic that so heavily infulences his writing is obviously relevant, must more so that his brief marrage, which is mentioned 80.177.152.35 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, none of these instances cited above have anything whatsoever to do with the story plots or any important aspects of the stories. If, let's say, the bisexuality of one of the characters led to him/her getting the post of captain of the starship, and then got him/her into trouble with a major character in the book, then it would be relevant to mention it. In articles about the Saint books, or the James Bond books, is it relevant to mention that Leslie Charteris or Ian Fleming were heterosexuals? I don't think so. In fact, let's say that they *weren't* -- what possible difference would that make to the books as they are written? If we say in this article that Clarke *might* be bisexual, do we then say in the Asimov article that he was *clearly* heterosexual, as based on the fact that there are married couples in his books? But how do we *know* Asimov was 100% hetero? Etc. etc. etc. Hayford Peirce 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This arguement just isn't logical or consistent. The article is packed full of details that arn't relevent to the plot of his books, (eg Place of birth, working as an auditor, marrage and rapid separation). Also, the bisexual nature of some of his characters is *highly* relevent to stories. See Imperial Earth or Songs for examples (I can supply page refs if you like).
The auguement that 'it doesnt affect the books so lets not mention it' misses the point. It manifestly influences a number of his later books (see above), and even if it didn't, by mentioning his marrage ACC's heterosexuality is implied. The article is about the man, not just the books.
Frankly the 'lets not mention it' arguement is a bit 1950's (least said soonest mended etc etc), the 'not relevent to his stories' one is just dumb.
The only good arguement is privacy and ACC's reluctance to 'out' himself - which is fine with me. I guess we have to wait for his death, and the publishing of his archives to find out for sure. (if you're reading this Arthur, sorry to be anticipating your demise! I wish you'd clear up the matter - you conspicously havent so far. I know a few Sri Lankan's, and it's the worst kept secret since Rajiv Gandhi said "fighter jets over sri-lanka, what fighter jets??"). 80.177.152.35 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because an author writes about bisexual characters does not mean that the author himself is a bisexual. Does an author who writes about a main character being a murderer make the author himself a murderer? I don't think so. Remember when Clarke stated in his paperback publication of Childhood's End that the opinions stated in the book were not his own? What does that tell you? Suffor

If anybody gives a damn, Clarke admitted to homosexuality in the July 1, 1986 issue of Playboy. I am not adding that manifestly relevant fact to the section on his sexuality because I am SICK AND TIRED of politically correct bowlderism on Wikipedia and don't feel like writing another contribution which will be immediately deleted by the Politeness And Sensitivity Police.

Oh, and if anybody cares, the parents in the area all knew to "keep your boys away from the Clarke compound". That is an exact quote, but even if I remembered the source (it wasn't the Sun), if I included it in this increasingly-irrelevant encyclopedia, it would be deleted.

Clarke also had a little boy living with him in the sixties; he mentions it his book about diving which came right before Treasure of the Great Reef. On top of that, homosexual pederasty is rampant in Siri Lanka; there was a sex-tourism scandal about it a few years ago, and for decades he has stayed exclusively at the hotel Chelsea, sometimes for months on end, in the 50's and 60's when that was THE place for wealthy homosexuals to hang out in New York when being gay was illegal. The hotel's advertising literature of the time all but comes out and says so explicitly (details on request).

As someone else pointed out, these things are not only true, but everyone who has followed clarke their whole life (presumably most of us here) KNOWS these things are true. Whether it makes you hate clarke or not (I still love him) and whether it is encyclopedic (I believe it is) are other questions, but in my mind, truth trumps all, and ALL truth should be included. In wikipedia, however, there are other... considerations... which Management deems more important than both relevancy and truth -- even when that truth can be cited in unquestionable sources (like a Playboy interview with clarke himself).

You people disgust me. TechnoFaye Kane 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia really works. Sources, please. Do we have trusted sources that agree with you? --Kjoonlee 11:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
She actually quoted a source in there. I saw it, too. I remember that at the time I had a good friend who, having heard that Clarke had admitted to having sex with a man, refused to read Clarke's books any longer. My friendship with that homophobe broke up over it. The story is quite true and was the "scandal" widely discussed in the SF Fandom world in 1986. Sad that you youngsters don't remember it.--Eliyahu S Talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither wide discussion nor a perceived scandal makes anything true. Also, it's not enough for anything to be just true; facts need to be verifiable for inclusion at Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.. well, you COULD start with the July 1, 1986 Playboy interview where clarke admits to homosexuality, but why bother? Not only will this information (clearly relevant to the section about his sexuality) not be included, but my discussion above will be censored out AND I'll be temporarily banned for "hate speech" or whatever name they're giving to telling the truth this year.

Sadly, I am all TOO well aware of of how Wikipedia really works. TechnoFaye Kane 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Have other people read that issue, and are those people trusted sources, and do they agree with you? --Kjoonlee 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian says he always denies it when asked if he's gay. I trust the Guardian more than second-hand news from someone I don't know. --Kjoonlee 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See my comments above. I read it. It was quite a scandal in the SF world that summer.--Eliyahu S Talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm making it up because I have homophobia: I hate homo sapiens. If you weren't a Comstockian Luddite, you'd google "homosexuality arthur c clarke playboy" and read each of the 9,960 hits. TechnoFaye Kane 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're making it up. I'm not a Luddite so I Googled it and found only wishful thinking. --Kjoonlee 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

??? Wishful thinking? You could start with 365Gay.com, or any of the "famous homosexuals" lists on "gay and proud" web sites. You might also read the Playboy interview (as I have). My point isn't that Clarke is gay; everyone KNOWS he's gay. And frankly, that doesn't make me think less of Clarke; it makes me think better of gays. My point is that wikipedia is less interested in manifest truth than it is in being "politically sensitive"TechnoFaye Kane 12:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is concerned about accuracy (even if it doesn't always meet that objective), verifiability, and reliable sources. The 365Gay.com reference (if you're referring to the one that comes up on the first page of a Google search for "homosexuality arthur c clarke playboy") merely says "July 1, 1986 - Renowned science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke comes very close to coming out in an interview published in Playboy magazine", not that he did so; the Guardian profile which Google throws up on the same page, says "He is widely thought to be gay, although he has never publicly acknowledged it. When directly asked the question, he jests he is 'merely mildly cheerful'". This is hardly the behaviour of someone who is "gay and proud". Everything else which that Google search throws up appears either to be wishful thinking, discussions of the sexuality of characters in his stories, or the fact that articles about him and stories he's written have appeared in magazines all over world, including Playboy. This is why unsubstantiated gossip will not be retained in the article. -- Arwel (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Of course he's not gay and proud, he's gay and ashamed of it. Ask him about it and he winks and makes jokes. He's on every list of famous gays, but at this point, it's academic, as the truth will never see the light of day here. Nevertheless, for the curious: http://www.tobyjohnson.com/arthurcclarke.html and http://forums.pcworld.co.nz/showthread.php?t=61803 where it says "That Arthur C. Clarke is gay has been an open secret in the science fiction community for years" not to mention http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

My last post in this thread; I'm tired of talking about it. TechnoFaye Kane 13:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who said "You could start with ...any of the "famous homosexuals" lists on "gay and proud" web sites", which is why I said that he has never claimed to be. Anyway, you're arguing in circles: The rediff article refers back to the Sunday Mirror article which started the whole hoo-ha at the time of his knighthood, and which was retracted as the article says. A discussion forum -- even one of PC Worlds' -- is nothing more than gossip and is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, and as a reader of SF for over 40 years I feel qualified to ask "who the hell is Toby Johnson?", as I've never heard of him and have no idea what his credentials or qualifications to discuss Clarke are. -- Arwel (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
wooooo go arwel parry, defender of reliability! Don't let the Man get you down! --Ceas webmaster 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the Playboy interview now (or what claims to be the thing), and I say it doesn't say he's gay. To assert at Wikipedia articles that Arthur C. Clarke is gay, based on that interview, would be POV pushing. --Kjoonlee 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"What CLAIMS to be a playboy interview"? Did you revert an *obviously* relevant fact in an article about Clarke's sexuality because you're accusing me of creating a fake page from playboy magazine as a citation? No, if thats what you're saying, then say it explicitly. Or better yet, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF IN THE LIBRARY. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TechnoFaye">TechnoFaye Kane</a> 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread my comment again, and check who reverted your edits. --Kjoonlee 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you need to reread the interview and your own edits as well, because the interview doesn't say what you want it to say, and your edits didn't match the interview. --Kjoonlee 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Playboy: "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?"
Clarke: "Of course!"
My new edit: "Clarke, who has enthusiastically admitted having bisexual experience..."

Okay, now BEFORE REVERTING IT AGAIN, please explain any one of:
1) why this is irrelevant to an article about Clarke's sexuality, or
2) why this edit is not supported by the magazine interview cited, or
3) why you think the exclaimation "Of course!" is not enthusiastic, or
4) why you say (as you did above) that you think I manufactured a forged page in Playboy magazine in order to slander my favorite (though gay) sci-fi author TechnoFaye Kane 23:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the interview carefully, because you're quoting it out of context. It seems to me as if you're in danger of violating several content policies at Wikipedia. And I think everyone is entitled to skepticism. Remind yourself about the first pillar of WP:5, if you want. --Kjoonlee 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Converting "Have you had bisexual experience" to "admitted to having homosexual sex" is just plain distortion of facts. Also remember to go through WP:BLP. An awfully ambiguous Playboy interview is nowhere near a good enough source for such an extraordinary claim. In any case what does it have to do with the section in question? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. Also, isn't it possible for you to be an innocent victim of trickery rather than a trickster yourself? Please don't jump to conclusions. --Kjoonlee 11:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say the interview cited is actually unambiguous in that Clarke is just as homosexual as the average person: probably not homosexual at all. "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?" "Of course. Who hasn't?" Note absence of enthusiasm, and apparent humour. --Kjoonlee 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, there was an exclamation point after that "of course".

I know I am outvoted by the politically-correct crowd, so even AFTER providing the requested smoking-gun playboy interview (and having been accused of forging it), I will again retire from this thread.

But you have managed to suppress the truth only by being pedantic and disingenuous. You guys remind me of the right-wing talk-radio people who defend the fag senator: "He MIGHT not be gay!" "The police just entrapped him!" "Since when is tapping your foot in a bathroom stall a crime?"

BULL SHIT. The senator's a fag and so is Clarke. That's not BAD, but it's TRUE. Have you ever heard Barney Frank speak? I did last weekend, and that's one COOL DUDE!! In general, I think gays are far better people than "normals" by every measure from intelligence to sense of humor, and I prefer to hang around with gay men than straight ones.

But all that is irrelevant: Clarke is GAY.

I'm not anti-gay; I'm anti suppression of the truth. Unfortunately, a lot of that happens here at wikipedia ever since "management" decided this was more about CYA and not offending anyone than it is about making the truth available to humanity for free. TechnoFaye Kane 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) PS: You don't need to type a snotty comeback because I'm out of it now. YOU WON. You might just ask yourself though "What did I win? What did I accomplish?"

Please stay civil, and rely on reliable sources, please. --Kjoonlee 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And please don't distort facts. --Kjoonlee 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had left it at "be civil and cite reliable sources", I would have let you have the last word even though I AM being civil and an interview with Clarke in a national magazine IS a reliable source.

But then you invoked the name of my God: "FACTS".

Here are FACTS:
1) Arthur C. Clarke is a bisexual.
2) Everybody KNOWS he is a bisexual.
3) He admits to being bisexual in a national interview.
4) This information is relevant in an encyclopedia article discussing his sexuality.
5) You said we couldn't publish it here unliess I produced the article.
6) I produced the article; you accused me of forging the article.
7) When that appeared manifestly ridiculous (I told you to go look it up in the library as I did), you then denied that Clarke said what he blatantly, obviously, explicitly said.
8) Your strongarm effort to bully me with semi-idiotic semiotics does not convince anyone, but it DOES make this my last word in the subject here.
9) You have successfully suppressed a relevant FACT in an encyclopedia. I am sure you are very proud of that.

Now go ahead and take the last word with more disingenuous, psuedo-hoity-toity verbiage garbiage. TechnoFaye Kane 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are not paying enough tribute to your "God" is now a fact. If you look at the image that you linked, there's no exclamation mark after "Of course". --Kjoonlee 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should say "ACC persistently refuses to comment on his sexuality when interviewed on the subject"..? Otherwise known as 'doing a jodie' ;) 80.177.152.35 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical/Other

I think adding in his medical condition (arthritis in the extreme I think?) would also be a good idea. John Lynch 15:52, 31 July 2004 (GMT 10+)

Sir Arthur suffers from post-polio syndrome and is wheelchaired as a result; however he also does daily exercises and can stand for brief periods, especially when he plays table tennis. jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the scene in You Only Live Twice that Sir Arthur is supposed to have a cemeo appearance in? Kuralyov 02:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When someone's joke is taken seriously, you see how rumors get started. Sir Arthur wasn't in You Only Live Twice. But ... Doesn't Donald Pleasance as the evil Blofeld, sitting in his wheelchair, remind you just a little of Sir Arthur ...? Of course, it's a backward-in-time reference, as Sir Arthur wasn't in a wheelchair until the late 1980s, and the Bond movie was made a generation earlier. In passing: Blofeld also was the inspiration fo Mike Myers' "Dr. Evil." jcsherwood1950 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention should also be made of his cameo in 2010: Odyssey Two - sitting on a park bench outside the White House (his face and that of Stanley Kubrick also appear on a "Time" Magazine cover in the movie as President of the US and Premier of the USSR respectively). Grutness|hello?   23:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arthur_C._Clarke article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Arthur_C._Clarke}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor note should be added including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake information in the following Slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/12/28/0120240.shtml?tid=99&tid=1 --Spug 22:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not having seen this first (bad Me :-), I put a blip in the lede. We can expand it below, preparatory to moving it down there permanently later. -- Baylink 05:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Autodidact category removal

I removed "autodidact" - he studied at one of the England's most prestigious universities. The fact that he did it after a short period of employment and then his military service doesn't mean that he was self-taught (at the time he went to university, it was usual to be studying while in mid to late 20's). Admittedly he was already publishing sci-fi by that time, but many sci-fi writers start young. The fact that they haven't finished their formal education before starting their occupation doesn't qualify them as autodidacts, as far as I can see. And just because the degree wasn't in English literature or similar, doesn't mean he counts as an autodidact just because his occupation was not a direct branch-out of his degree. --VivaEmilyDavies 00:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


2001: book and film will have separate articles

Just a head's up that the book will have its own article soon, which will necessitate some link changes. See the film's talk page for more.

Science fact

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clarke also wrote at least one science fact book. The Promise of Space appeared in 1968, and was reissued in 1985. --205.175.225.5 20:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

telecomunications

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't Clarke considered the inventor of the telecomunication's satelite?

I think he was the first person to think up the idea of a geostationary satelite. For people interested in communications, get a copy of his non-fiction book "When the World Was One"

He wrote about satellites in his short stories that were published. He did not think that they would come as soon as they have done so he did not patent them. However when the companies saw that the satellites could make a lot of money they tried to patent them but Clarke pointed out that he had invalidated their patents.

He wrote a wry article, "How I Lost a Billion Dollars At Home In My Spare Time" (later updated to "How I Lost a Trillion Dollars At Home In My Spare Time") on how he thought of, but did not patent, the idea of communications satellites. - 21 december 2005


He couldn't have patented it, it was already public domain by over 15 years.Herman Potočnik's book(c.1929) introduced the first full concept of geostationary communications satellites (first put forward by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky). - 26 January 2006

To be precise, Potočnik's book describes a space station and discusses communication between the space station and the ground, but the application of a satellite for mass communication and telephony is a specific invention that does not seem to be covered. Elroch 11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's wearing a "I Invented the Satellite and All I Got is this Lousy T-Shirt" t-shirt in a BBC news article. I kid you not. [1] — WCityMike (T | C) 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Herbert

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Was Frank Herbert as good of a science fiction author as Clarke, Asimov and Heinlen, the so called Big Three of science fiction?--Moosh88 22:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In what units would you like us to measure "good"? - 21 december 2005
His reputation rests mainly on the Dune series. The Big Three were much more diverse and productive. Clarityfiend 09:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Good Herbert is in the same league as the "Big Three". However, they are not known as the "Big Four"
Strange, when I read Sci-Fi back in the 80s, the "Big Three" seemed to be Clarke, Asimov and Ray Bradbury. Although already then I wondered why I knew so few about Bradbury. 195.46.254.17 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image for top of article

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image that assumedly had been uploaded for the top of the article appears to have been deleted. I removed the empty box for it for now, and hopefully someone has an image that they can upload and place in the article. --Syrthiss 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anonymous put "http://ramarpg.proboards74.com/index.cgi? Raman simulator" in the external links. This looks like an RPG, but it isn't there yet. I'm removing it for now, but if something develops, it might become interesting later maybe. Or maybe this is just link spam. --ssd 06:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused about 2001 film credit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 2001 section, second paragraph, it says, "It was credited to Clarke alone." This doesn't make sense to me -- is "Kubrick" intended/correct? Thx, "alyosha" 05:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about Clarke's spirtual beliefs...

"crypto-buddist" he once said and noted secular humanist.

Attribution of quote needed

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently claims that the United States said that Clarke "provided the essential intellectual drive that led us to the moon.", a statement that is taken from a 1994 news release. Since countries themselves do not speak, does anyone know who did say this (or something similar)?Elroch 13:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rescue Party movie wanted

Is is possible to find the short movie Resue Party for legal purchase in any media? DVD preferred, VHS ok, BetaMax slightly-less-ok, film-reel acceptable.


Gentry Lee, co-author or ghostwriter?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

He is listed as "co-author" on a number of Clarkes' later books. I believe "ghostwriter" would be more accurate. If one reads the books it appears that they were actually written by Lee and then published with Clarkes' name on them. They do take place in Clarkes' settings and use Clarkes' characters. Their styles are quite different. Clarke is a first rate author. Lee would quickly fade out of print if he published under his own name. Based on his fiction, I had not realized Lee had any real scientific background. Would it be appropriate to change the Wiki article to reflect this?

Having read some of the Clarke/Lee works, I agree that it's difficult to detect any trace of Clarke's style in them. The notion that Lee ghost-wrote them is quite plausible. However, we cannot state it as fact in a Wikipedia article without citing a reliable source. Accordingly, I have tagged that statement with the {{citation needed}} template. Pat Berry 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No one has come forward with a citation, so I am deleting the statement that Clarke's later works were ghostwritten. I am aware of no evidence supporting that notion. Pat Berry 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarke in gaming

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

someone should add a section on the few Video Games that have been made out of his books. User:Zerath13

Wait! Time out! Please sign your comments when you add your thoughts in this subject and all the other areas of Wikipedia. Thank You for you co-operation! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a slight edit in the Introduction; I think it reads a bit better this way. CFLeon 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deist, agnostic, atheist?

Is it compatible for Clarke to be categorised both as a "Deist thinker" and an agnostic? I thought he was an atheist--I believe that's the category he was in some time ago.

2001 as first section? WTF?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the first section on one small part of this man's life? It needs to be moved or deleted or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.217.6.9 (talk • contribs).

I agree that it's placement is odd. Someone more familiar with the article than myself should move it to a more appropriate place. - Dr. Zaret 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Report on Planet Three

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm deleting this from the list of novels, since it isn't a novel. Johnny Pez 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

World of Strange Powers on DVD yet?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clarke is also well known to many for his television programmes Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World (1981) and Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers (1984).

Does anyone know if there are any plans to release either of those shows on DVD? I remember hearing rumors on and off but does anyone know what the story is? Or even if Clarke is aware that these works are not available on DVD? (Simonapro 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Puzzlements and miscellany

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

1. This sentence from "Themes, styles and influences":

"Despite this, Clarke's style was open to humour and a degree of whimsy which salted its propagandist tone regarding scientific advancement with a sting in the tail."

Can someone tell me what it's trying to say?

It's just lousy, pretentious writing. Hayford Peirce 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I edited the section, and that sentence is gone. But those paragraphs still need work. ChrisWinter 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And now it's back. Further, there's no sign of that version in the history. What gives? ChrisWinter 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've just taken it out again. And this time I'll keep it out. Hayford Peirce 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've no idea who put it back — if anyone did. My edit of 11 August is missing from the history, which makes me suspect some sort of glitch in Wikipedia's servers. Does that sound sensible? ChrisWinter 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I *know* that I made a minor edit in another article about the same time, in which, like here, I simply removed a sentence, then saved it. A while later I went back to the article and discovered that there was no record of what I had done. Just a Wiki glitch, I guess. Hayford Peirce 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2. "'The Sentinel' (1948) introduced a religious theme to Clarke's work, a theme that he later explored more deeply in "The Star". His interest in the paranormal was influenced by Charles Fort and embraced the belief that mankind may be the property of an ancient alien civilization. Surprisingly for a writer who is often held up as an example of hard science fiction's obsession with technology, three of Clarke's novels have this as a theme."

I know Childhood's End is one. Which are the other two?

3. I also think that the article should say a bit more about Clarke's involvement with the BIS and his life on Sri Lanka. WRT the latter, I know he played an important role in a school or university in Colombo -- Chancellor or some such.

4. Concerning who are the "Big Three" authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, see the article on A. E. van Vogt. There's a potential conflict there.

Not really. Van Vogt was a big shot *before* Clarke first appeared. Clark did not really become a major writer in the SF world until, oh, let's say the late 40s, early 50s. By which time Van Vogt had partially vanished. The "Big Three" was probably not used for Clarke, Asimov, and RAH until the 60s, or maybe even later. Hayford Peirce 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Finally, having a list of books here and a separate article about his books (collectively) with a similar list seems like overkill. --ChrisWinter 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The list of external links has been tagged for cleanup for some time. I propose to change it as follows:

The following links point to supplemental material on Arthur C. Clarke, or to links to such material.

Interviews

Awards and organizations startedor influenced by Clarke

Because it's on the page of links pointed to by entry #5 above.
Because it's on the links page, and appears (or should appear) as a reference in the text.
Because that page doesn't make it clear what Clarke's contribution to cooperation in space was: that he's been a long-time advocate of satellite monitoring as a means of arms control. I think it would be better to put this link back in the article proper, inside a paragraph that discusses those contributions.
Because AFAICT it has only a tenuous connection to Clarke's work.
Because, again, the science abstractor job is a minor part of Clarke's career. The link should to to a paragraph above.
Bare mention of Clarke as a member, halfway down the long page, and a tiny photo. Once again, I'd put this in the paragraph about his SCUBA diving.
Because it's just a greenhouse named in honor of Clarke.
None. I was going to suggest adding a link to the Science Museum reproduction of Clarke's Wireless World article, but I see that one's on the links page too. Also, it appears as a reference above, or it should. In fact, I'd put in 3 references to the commsat idea: R-Bianci, Lakdiva, and Science Museum. ChrisWinter 05:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Publishing date of Prelude to Space contradiction

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The bibliography gives a 1951 date for Clarke's first novel. The actual article on the book says 1953. Which is correct? 23skidoo 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to my copy of Twentieth Century Science Fiction Writers (2nd ed.) (1986), it was published in New York by Galaxy Books in 1951; in London by Sidgwick and Jackson in 1953; as Master of Space by Lancer Books, New York in 1961, and again by them in 1969 as The Space Dreamers. -- Arwel (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Radar experience

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says "he ... was involved in the early warning radar defence system which contributed to the RAF's success during the Battle of Britain.". Is this really right? I thought he joined the airforce during the war (after the Battle of Britain, I assume) and was involved in the Ground Controlled Approach system which can't really be called an "early warning radar defence system". EdDavies 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct. His (excellent) novel 'Glide Path' was based on this experience. TechnoFaye Kane 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the Greatest of all time Science Fiction Authors

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have been trying to add that with the gist of the article but apparently there is some confusion over using superlatives or 'weasel words' as they are called. Other articles are using it, other articles about a number of living and passed men of importance. For example Jules Verne and H G Wells articles' are using the phrase "Father of Science Fiction". Please provide your inputs as to why or why not some kind of reference to his greatness in that field should be explicitly mentioned for people with little or no knowledge of him could grasp what he was. This is only rational. If Jesus is called "the most influential" or some similar superlative in wikipedia, why is there a problem for Arthur C Clarke. Reason would also note that his Space Odyssey remains the best selling sci-fi series. Please comment. ankit 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons:
  • One, using Jules Verne as an example, such "father of..." phrases are used because they founded the genre in its modern sense, not by being popular, though that is often also the case. Clarke did indeed make contributions - like the geostationary orbit and the space elevator - but he did not have the same historical importance.
  • Two, "best-selling" does not denote historical and/or major cultural value, though Space Odyssey does indeed have the latter. If you can find a source - a reliable one, unlike the previous one - that lists him as "most influential to modern science fiction" or something like that, then you may include it.
On a closing note, before you accuse me of possible bias, you might want to see a couple of my userboxes.
-RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Weasel words are phrases like "some people think" used to modify superlatives on matters of opinion. You have to back strong statements of opinion with definitive sources. Saying "some people" and backing it with some website does not cut it. The "Big Three" is a well established description which belongs in the lead section. Do you have any other critical opinion from a well-respected source that rises to a comparable level? A brief description of a person on a website does not constitute a critical analysis. The tone of Wikipedia is neutral. Opinions are attributed to people, where it can be shown that their opinion matters. I could find all sorts of superlatives on the flyleaf of Clarke's books, but that isn't enough.
You need facts. To my knowledge (no detailed research implied), Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy" has sold more copies than "2001" and sequels. Do you have any good sources to back your assertions? A brief description on a website which might or might not be accurate is a weak source.
No one is saying that you are wrong, but you have to do more than be right. You have to support assertions. You need to follow the format where the lead should be a concise picture drawn from the salient points in the article, not interjected points.Novangelis (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and useful explanation RadicalOne. I did not accuse you, fellow editor, I just read the term (weasel word) for the first time. I read about it and am okay with it being used. About the article, I agree with the points you made. Before a credible source is found to add any superlative for Clarke, I think we all can agree to my latest addition to the article, about him being one of the most famous, at least. At least one credible source is cited. Again thank you. I like the quote at your page - "Don't get mad, find a source." ankit 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided does not make a direct statement anything like what you are attempting to add to the article. The source you provide must explicitly states what you are claiming it does. Yworo (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There, now the edition contains copied words from the first line of the source. I also added one more source, although I am not sure the second source is authentic. Anyways, the first one is and this edition is almost perfect for the opening. ankit 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, copying words should be done as a quotation, which raises a new set of issues. Again, focus of building content from sources that are appropriate. If you are discussing literary merit, a website about religious beliefs is not all that valuable. The goal is verifiability; the foundation for the content is as important as the content, itself. Novangelis (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you did not check the entire website and its sourcing or even that particular page completely. The sourcing is immaculate, it uses all sorts of statistical facts to conclude the list. Besides, mentioning the three giants in the opening line is proof enough. Quotation could be used if it was by particular person or in context of title. Many openings in wikipedia use superlatives about a number of people (Muhammad, Jesus etc) without even sourcing anything, taking some things of history as a too common a fact to be cited. Besides, you would have to be hard pressed to claim au contraire about Clarke anywhere else. Heinlein is called dean on a website (quoted) but the source becomes elusive to its authenticity. Wikipedia happily includes, editors don't mind. Even I don't mind, anyone who knows something about Science Fiction knows these things to be factual for these legends. ankit 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On a second note check out the criteria of the list, link for which is given on the page. It maybe about religion but the means it employs for its ends makes it an excellent statistical tool for a number of famous people. Besides, it doesn't matter whether you get your book (source) from Church's Library or School Library. ankit 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the criteria are so open-ended as to be meaningless. You can get on their list for being famous for anything and having written one piece of science fiction.Novangelis (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are like 100 authors on the list, so if you write one fantastic sci-fi novel you are probably in. But overall criteria is exhaustive. I mean given that the ones actually coming out on top of most criteria are the ones the general public considers to be best ever. ankit 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

1, Opinions need to be attributed, ie XXX has stated that ACC is the best person in the world, and he won the YYY best man ever award in 2063. Even then, we require consensus for disputed additions. 2, Please add a link to your signatureVerbal chat 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Big Three

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Because someone added the term "Big Three" to the lead section, I've added a section about it. I don't know when the term was first used or by whom. What I did put together was a minimal piece about the relationship between Clarke and the other two. It could be expanded or cut to a sentence in the "Writing career" section. Novangelis (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph there, I found confusing, regarding the chronology of events. When did the "friendly insults and jabs for decades" start? Had Clarke and Asimov neither met nor communicated before 1973? Did "Clarke put the "treaty" on paper" the year before that, in 1972? (or, blame it all on merlot and me...) Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Good pickup. Thanks. It was 1953 (a week before Clarke's marriage). In the autobiography, "1973" appeared two lines down. That's the source of the error. I wish I had merlot to blame. I took the time to double check the 1972 treaty date. Again, thanks. Novangelis (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Material about interest in young boys

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User:Screaminsista has been blocked for operating a sockfarm, likely connected behaviorally to User:Otto4711. That is all--Jayron32 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed, investigated, and exonerated according to by The Telegraph. Will delete per BLP. Ward20 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting referenced material from this article. My edit has nothing to do with a court case. It's about an interview that Clarke gave. I'm sure you know as well as I that you're not supposed to remove referenced material from a wikipedia article without seeking and obtaining a clear consensus. Screaminsista (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
No; we need the best of possible sources for this kind of material, and the Daily Mirror is not it. Looking at the latest disputed edit and following the link, the original source seems to be the Sunday Mirror which is a tabloid. Not a reliable source. I agree with Ward20 and Jayron in not adding this material to the article. Antandrus (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
As you have already been told by Jayron, the burden is on you to show not only that statements are verifiable but that it is also appropriate. You have made absolutely no distinction between what was being claimed and fact (and indeed apparently deliberately have confused them) and made no mention of the subsequent apology, admission the statements were fabricated. That fundamentally disagrees with WP:UNDUE, it deserves no place in the article as a result.
Personally I think this is quite sick and the only reason I'm not reporting repetition of these claims as criminally defamatory is because the subject is sadly recently deceased. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I find this whole thing a bit much. Had anyone involved discussed this matter first and reached consensus, according to wiki protocol, and then reverted my edit, that would have been the end of it. It's your own failure to do so that's the source of this conflict. I read the article, checked the discussion page, where there wasn't a word about it, and performed my edit. I had no reason to believe that it wasn't true. It's been repeated so many times. I knew nothing about the controversy generated by it, or that it had been retracted. I'm shocked that it hasn't been taken down. I've read many other articles about Clarke and his alleged pedophilia, but not a word about his exoneration. Had any of you started a discussion on this page, as per the rules, and simply brought my attention to it, I would have understood your grievances, and responded accordingly. Instead, I was hit by a barrage of rudeness, hostility, false accusations and a complete flouting of wikipedia protocol. This just underscores how important it is to follow protocol, maintain etiquette and continue to assume good faith. I have no interest in defaming Arthur Clarke, nor anyone else. I'm greatly relieved to know that he was exonerated.
Lastly, I think it's important that this issue be addressed, in a very different light, of course. Unfortunately, it's part of his history, and this is an encyclopedia. We can't just brush the matter under the rug and pretend it never happened. To do so passively allows this now discredited interview and the numerous others that are based on it to go on harming Clarke's reputation. It also leaves wiki readers to wonder why it's not addressed, after reading so many articles about it over time. It should be addressed squarely, and made clear that he was fully exonerated and his reputation, restored. It would be a disservice to Clarke not to address it and put it to rest. Our failure to do so will lead many, if not most, to continue to think that it's true. Have a good 2011. Screaminsista (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Besides that, complete event is already reported in the article using better sources in the section Later years. Ward20 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that. Perfect. It makes it even more ridiculous to try to post the very libel that was refuted, and for which the Mirror apologized. Hopefully this is the end of it. Antandrus (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you say "I missed that"? Well, so did I. Maybe it's because the article is so long and rambling, or because it's camouflaged among a number of miscellaneous facts, and not adressed in a direct, forthright manner, as I believe it should be. It's unfortunate that certain editors on this page have chosen to assume malice, in the lack of any evidence of such. It would be extremely unwise to continue referring to my edit as an attempt to propagate libel, which is deeply absurd, extremely offensive and in itself, libelous. I would suggest that certain editors on this page review Wikipedia:Etiquette, as well as Wikipedia:WikiBullying and stop throwing foolish allegations around. Screaminsista (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been blocked as a sockpuppet. Thank you for the lecture. Once again, I hope this is the end of it. Antandrus (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why not the "Clarke Event"?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What's wrong with mention of GRB 080319B, let alone GRB 080319A, -C, -D and GRB 080320, all five within the 24-hour period around his death? The events certainly weren't normal, even if not paranormal, and do bear faint echoes of The Star (short story). --Pawyilee (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

While you might see "faint echoes" of something he wrote, Wikipedia does not publish your perception of echoes. The topic is Arthur C. Clarke, not events loosely connected to the life of Arthur C. Clarke.Novangelis (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
We had an "edit conflict when I tried to add the following:
  • The article does say he stated, "I'm always paraphrasing J. B. S. Haldane: 'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.'" No one could have imagined that a satellite, the like of which he predicted would be in our skies, would have been there to detect stranger events than he had imagined in "The Star"?

I'm not the only one imagining things, but I imagine I'll have to be satisfied with these comments on the Talk page. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Influences

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose that a mention be made of Clarke's major influence for the development of _2001_, Robert Ardrey. (I've made this proposal in the article on Kubrick as well.) Ardrey's _African Genesis_ provided the blueprint for the "Dawn of Man" segments as well as the underlying philosophy of the story. The Hunting Hypothesis in particular ties together the existing theme of "Man as tool-using animal" with the 2001 / 2010 theme of "Man as weapon-wielding animal" (see the famed "match cut" in the motion picture release).

Byff (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be good stuff. Do you have some references you can cite to include this information in articles? --Jayron32 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Views

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any reason why the section on his views precedes the sections on his works? Are his views really that notable? Would they be notable at all if not for the successes of his works?

The organization of the sections on his works also seems out of order. I'd put the sections on his writings ahead of the sections on his film adaptations, since his films are derivative of his writings. Rwflammang (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the "Views" section did rise to too high a position, and I may be responsible, in part. Since it was written piecemeal, a little rejuggling could trigger any number of improvements. I say go for it. In the case of 2001, the book and the movie were developed concurrently with Clarke and Kubrick both having screenwriting credit. There's a mildly humorous line (not so pithy as to warrant tracking it down) about the book being adapted from the movie and the movie adapted from the book somewhere (I think either the Clarke biography or Lost Worlds of 2001).Novangelis (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CBE

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the CBE title after his name irelevant? I always believed that a knighthood displaced a CBE?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Each honour compounds they do not supersede each other 86.145.144.171 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Death

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Why must it be necessary to search the article for events relating to his death? For instance, “Coincidentally, the passing of Arthur C. Clarke the day before seems to have set the universe ablaze with gamma ray bursts,” says [[Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission}Swift]] science team member Judith Racusin of Penn State University in University Park, Pa.A Stellar Explosion You Could See on Earth! --Pawyilee (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Is there a reason you haven't edited the article so that there is a section related to his death? And by the way, it is not necessary to post the same message twice on this page. Cresix (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As the quote said, the timing was coincidence, so the content is not encyclopedic: it does not inform us of who Clarke was. A old press release that makes reference to two then-recent events does not establish any notable relationship.Novangelis (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The current structure of the Biography section doesn't really lend itself to dropping in a 'Death' section at the end. IMHO it would look out of place as there are no corresponding sections for other parts of Clarke's life. The Biography section is mostly chronological, so it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to find reference to Clarke's death at the end of the 'Later years' section. Deagol2 (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it is more than a little obvious where his death is discussed. I was simply responding to Pawyilee's apparent difficulties in finding it. Cresix (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir Arthur C. Clarke's Predictions

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Talk:Vsmith talk:BatterIncluded What is the Wikipedia "way" to insert a reference to these predictions. ie can I include most of the text or am I only allowed a single reference to this webpage : http://www.arthurcclarke.net/?scifi=3 BSmith821 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me guess: 2061 is your favorite. I really don't know - maybe the easiest would be an external link? And no, "include most of the text" is out. It would be better if some third party has discussed these predictions.
Also maybe you should figure out why those talk links up there are red? If they were blue - p'raps a busy little bot would buzz ... then again maybe not. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear tension in 2010

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states that the movie 2010: Odyssey Two deals with nuclear tensions during the cold war which were not in the book. I haven't seen the movie in many years, but I did just read the book and there are numerous references to global nuclear tension (including China selling turnkey nuclear arms programs to interested nations for a relatively nominal fee, the fact that it is remarkable that the world hadn't nuked itself yet, etc., not to mention the nuke that the entity that was David Bowman detonated in orbit). It seems to me that this makes the statement about nuclear tensions not being in the book clearly false. Your thoughts? --73.52.128.59 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable work

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who decides what's notable works? There are some examples mentioned in the infobox, but no references. I can see why 2001: A Space Odyssey and Rendezvous with Rama is on the list, but why the others? 2A02:FE0:C900:1:ADC4:D2C2:F604:A44D (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have his best known fiction and non-fiction titles plus two Hugo Award winners. Deagol2 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Information about death

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm thinking about creating a separate section for information about his death.If you can find resources,citation (which might help me a lot) post those links here.--Chamith (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

For Clarke's attitude towards death (crypto-Buddhist indeed!) I suggest the last quarter of Rama Revealed (1993). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.24.165 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has stated that Sir Arthur was of British-Sri Lankan citizenship, this is not true. Someone also edited his profile with the Sri Lankan honour 'Sri Lankabhimanya' right at the top of his biography which is pushing it a bit. The lede mentions that particular honour already and shouldn't be given precedent over his national honour. Editors can confirm for themselves that Clarke was never Sr Lankan here: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/090503/Education/ed706.html, Although he lived in Sri Lanka for 52 years, he always remained a British citizen. In 1975, he was granted the country's first 'Resident Guest' status, an immigration category that allowed accomplished foreigners to live in the country. Clarke never sought nor received Sri Lankan citizenship. regards. Twobells (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Arthur C. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sri Lankabhimanya

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On 8 May 2015, in this edit, the honorific for the lede was changed from "Sir Arthur C. Clarke" to Sri Lankabhimanya Arthur C. Clarke" and subsequently to "Sri Lankabhimanya Sir Arthur C. Clarke" with no explanation, and no complaint since then, except for Twobells's comment above. While the award is significant, it is unlikely that Clarke ever used the title himself or that the title has been widely used for him outside of Sri Lanka. I recommend removing this honorific from Clarke's name in the lede, while retaining the information about his receiving the award, leaving the lede to read "Sir Arthur C. Clarke, ..." as it did prior to 8 May 2015. Comments? Complaints? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

According to this, foreign titles are not recognized as part of the legal name of a British subject, so I believe that the Sri Lankabhimanya title should not form part of the name at the start of the lede. It is already mentioned further down with the knighthood. Deagol2 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It could logically be added at the start, where it is common to put alternative names. --GwydionM (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Arthur C. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arthur C. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Imperial Earth

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I offered the following material in the article and it was reverted:

In Imperial Earth he presents a culture where gay and straight relationships are equally acceptable. The main characters are presented as having a series of both types, though a heterosexual fixation is a major plot feature.

The book is referenced, and the fixation does get a reference there. The issue of the gay relationships is not discussed. Would some page references to the gay relationships be sufficient to justify this being reinserted? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The linked article has virtually no references, so I would advise adding page references. You could also use this article as a source. Deagol2 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"British is the standard"

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@GwydionM: Regarding this revert, can you cite where it was decided that the English be referred to as British? I could find no such guideline under MOS:BIO. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

18 pages for Category:English science fiction novels'. 472 for Category:British science fiction novels. --GwydionM (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Early Interest in Perpetual Motion.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My father, W C W Dean (deceased), told me that he was a contemporary (in a younger class) of A C Clarke in Huish's school. He said that A C Clarke set a needle oscillating on a bed of mercury, all placed in a vacuum. Its continued motion for a very long time got A C Clarke very excited about the prospect of perpetual motion, until its ultimate failure. I only have my father's word for this, and no other source. Can anyone else corroborate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:242F:35C0:A11D:44D4:BF83:45FF (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sri Lankan?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Given that Clarke lived in Sri Lanka for the bulk of his adult life, was granted permanent residency, and awarded the Sri Lankabhimanya (which has only been awarded 8 times), is it worth describing Clarke as Sri Lankan either in the lead or elsewhere? It seems odd that he is described as exclusively British. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Having residency does not make someone a Sri Lankan national. Deagol2 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Deagol2, agreed, but I don't think a person needs to be a Sri Lankan national or have citizenship to be Sri Lankan. This page is already listed under Top-importance Sri Lanka articles and WikiProject Sri Lanka. He was deeply honored, respected, and loved in the country he lived in for the majority of his life. He is buried there. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. He was an ex-pat, not a national and did not apply for citizenship. Sri Lankan is by definition a nationality. Deagol2 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Parents names?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clarke's parents names aren't given on the page (nor if he had siblings). Any information on his parents available? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent, validly sourced content about Clark's alleged pedophilia

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

Graham Johnson's book Hack substantiates the claims against Clark. One alleged police investigation in Sri Lanka does not equal exoneration. A court of law does. Mr. Clark never took the case to court which he could have easily done to officially exonerate himself. I have an Independent (the newspaper) article and a published book that substantiate the claims of Clark's pedophilia, and as such the information rightly deserves to be published in the article, more or less as written (that is, factually, giving both sides to the issue and not simply removing the issue). As such, this is not hearsay or rumor, this has not been previously discussed (which is not a valid reason to remove the content), and the source is completely valid; all reasons given for removing the content. In any event there should be no removal of validly sourced content without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.73.31 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims that didn't meet tabloid publication standards are not "views". The concept that tabloids are true if no one sued is ludicrous.Novangelis (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Such allegations are too toxic to be made in Wikipedia without legal proof of guilt.htom (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is only right that the facts as reported in this article are mentioned on wikipedia. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-spiked-paedophilia-scoop-on-arthur-c-clarke-for-fear-of-murdoch-7920816.html That being that a Mirror reporter has stated that Clarke did confess to him that he had sex with boys who had entered puberty. Such a claim made in a respected news paper cannot be ignored. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is hearsay. The Independent article merely mentions a claim in a book written by a former News Of The World reporter. It doesn't substantiate anything, and it coming from a former News Of The World reporter who was sacked makes it doubly dubious to say the least. The Wikipedia article as it stands mentions the allegation, and that it was retracted by the Sunday Mirror. Because Clarke chose not to sue the newspaper isn't relevant. If the Sri Lankan police found no evidence and did not prosecute over the matter, then there's no case. L@zloFeelot@lk 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not a court of law, and this pertains to historical facts, not legal facts.
Regardless, it is not hearsay that Sri lankans held protests after the police declared him innocent. it's not hearsay that they conducted an investigation. it's not hearsay that the claims where made in the first place. It's not hearsay that Clarke issued statements on the matter. Not a single one of these facts are "hearsay." They are relevant facts that any competent encyclopeadia article would include. The deletion of this encyclopeadic content has absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia's rules. This entire discussion just looks like fans defending the record of someone they don't want to think poorly of. How is it even possible that the argument has gotten this far? These are historical facts. They belong in an encyclopeadia. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia is incapable of providing the same information about a famous authors life as a google search, it looks exactly like censorship. 203.26.125.101 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How often are people going to try to add these claims to the article? I wasn't sure of his sexuality, but his reference in 2010 to Dr. Curnow insisting that he thought Max was over 18 definitely made me wonder. It also made me wonder if he had personal experience with underage boys. But that's all we have: wonder. Nothing verifiable or substantial. --73.52.128.59 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the history? I realise I am late to the article, but I came to Wikipedia to get a handle on this issue before I bought an Arthur C Clarke book i.e. I do not want to provide financial support to the estate of a paedophile (that is personal information, that I am only including here for background). I suspect that there are many others who heard the 'stories' of paedophilia at the time and did not hear an end result (if any). If those people are anything like me, and turn to Wikipedia to find out about the allegations and their outcome they will find... absolutely nothing!.

That is crazy! People turn to Wikipedia to find out what happened when, and cannot. Most look no further than the main article, which contains nothing about paedophilia allegations or their outcome has a brief mention of the incident under the heading 'Knighthood' - not where one normally looks for such information (and something I only found in my third check of the article, while writing this comment). Anyone who was around in the period in which these allegations were made - and in particular any science fiction fans - will remember it very clearly. I have not bought an Arthur C. Clarke book since then, because I did not know the outcome!

Any suggestion that since the Sri Lankan authorities dismissed the case all is fine and dandy is - at the very least - naive given the other references in this article to his stature on the island and the reputation of its police (e.g. this Tamil Guardian article, reports from Transparency International). The BBC report (ref 49) states in part (I have removed paragraph breaks) 'The deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime. "He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia." Police interviewed three young men who had told the Sunday Mirror they had sex with Sir Arthur when they were teenagers'. It goes on 'Mr Nizam said all three had now withdrawn their allegations'. Again, this is from the Sri Lankan police force. I am not saying that the investigation was not thorough, but I am saying to simply rely on such statements - especially since the investigation was ongoing at that time - is negligent in the extreme.

Link 50 provides no useful additional information other than a statement that 'Sri Lanka asked Interpol in April to get the interview tape from the newspaper. A reminder was sent a month later. The Sri Lankan High Commission in London also attempted to get the tape from the Sunday Mirror'. Link 51 states that 'the newspaper published an apology' (has anyone actually seen this?), and link 52 is behind a paywall.

We have a serious allegation that was treated seriously by a range of media sources. A few other links that may add something: The Independent, The Independent in 2012, and a theory from LankaWeb news.

I suggest - without yet making any changes - that more needs to be said about this incident, and it needs to be said in the right place. Yes, it was an allegation. Yes, the local police said 'it's rubbish'. Yes, the newspaper involved allegedly apologised [citation needed]. More needs to be said in this article about what occurred:

  • An accusation was made in a tabloid newspaper, that said x (the second linked article, 48, went into some detail and named names - including Jonathan Tampico, who turns up in a brief Google search as Jonathan Tampico - while this blog appears to contain more of the article than is at the other link, and indicates that Sacramento police had 'some information' about Clarke)
  • (One must ask whether the reporter did in fact travel to Sri Lanka - if not, the entire story collapses but still needs to be mentioned!)
  • Sri Lankan police were pressured by local Buddhist and other prominent organisations to conduct a full and proper investigation (somewhere in all of the links I have included in this comment)
  • Sri Lankan police advised that they found no evidence (quotes are relevant)
  • The tabloid allegedly apologised[citation needed].

This needs to be stated in the part of this article on his sexuality, which at the moment is a sub-sub-section but needs to be a subsection. And at the moment, I think all anyone can safely conclude is that the investigation ended, and no evidence has been made publicly available that indicates any guilt on the part of Sir Arthur. That is all history, not rubbishing the man's name, and is at the very least better than what is currently in the article - which appears to be attempting to bury the whole story. The current article is unfair to the man, as people like me who come looking for 'the truth' will not find it on Wikipedia (unless they look extremely closely), and many will simply conclude that there must be some truth in the story. Wikipedia is not here to judge, but to report - and this was a huge story in the late 90s. It deserves proper treatment.

Any dispute before the necessary changes are made, either by me or preferably someone with better Wikipedia skills? Ambiguosity (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You can gather from all the above that if you want the truth about Arthur's sexuality, Wikipedia is not the place to go looking for it. 86.187.165.71 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke/Archive_1&oldid=1219763595"