Talk:Arthur C. Clarke/Archive 2

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

In the line: "Clarke later complained that this had the effect of making the book into a novelisation, that Kubrick had manipulated circumstances to downplay his authorship." It is unclear to whom the last use of "his" refers. Was Kubrick downplaying his own authorship or Clarke's? --Navaburo 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that "his" refers to Clarke. --Gspinoza (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Furthermore, English grammar dictates that "his" must refer to the directly preceding name in the sentence - in this case, Kubrick. Since this is not what's meant, I'm going to adjust that. It's not just unclear, it's an error. - Lontano (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Asimov-Clarke treaty recent reverts
See this website, though that's not the best kind of reliable source; it should be sourced from a copy of "Report on Planet Three", though if I recall correctly only the dedication can be sourced there, not the background story. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it somewhere, perhaps in the Asimov autobio or somewhere else. I will look for it. In the meanwhile I think it can stay. It is unsourced, but it is true and not controversial. Garion96 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Those are good points. One possible place that it might be included is in a discussion of Clarke's popularity compared with other writers.  Asimov and Clarke had a long-standing friendly rivalry, and this could be mentioned and the treaty cited in support.  I recall another example is Asimov mentioning that Clarke is three years older; the context is one where it's clear Asimov is humorously reminding his readers of the rivalry between them.  Anyway, "Report on Planet Three" is certainly a source; the regular editors here can figure out where and whether to include it.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the second sentence can go with no problem. The actual 'treaty' I do think is notable enough in a trivial sort of way. Nice contradiction there right? :) And yes, we should always err on the side of caution. But unsourced material, besides material falling under WP:BLP, does not have to be removed immediately. You only waited three days for someone to add a source after you tagged it, that's too fast. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote Jimbo, "[Unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." While the info was more irrelevant and non-notable than negative in nature (negative info being the focus of Jimbo's quote, elaborated at the BLP policy here: WP:BLP), its always better to remove and discuss on talk. My apologies for not bringing it up here right away, which I should have done, but I still believe removal was appropriate.  --Edward Morgan Blake 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All true within limits, but if you tag with fact you should leave more then three days before you remove the information. Usually you give it a week or two. Either way, I will find a source for it. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blake, I am missing why you are concerned here. You are appealing to Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and quoting him out of context to boot.  There's nothing controversial or libelous about the Asimov-Clarke agreement.  It's mentioned in more than one of Asimov's books, though that's a lot of books to look through and find it.  I believe one of Asimov's book has an extended dedication ending with something like "In accordance with the aforementioned agreement, the world's second best science fiction writer dedicates this book to the world's second best science writer."   Randall Bart    Talk   15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Arthur Clark on Youtube
He recorded a message to fans just before he turned 90 (on the 16th of december) which was put on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXQ7rNgWwg - I think that should be mentioned in the main article (I could write it, but people always delete my additions) --IceHunter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Using cite web template seemed to help. Wwheaton (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey
Some of you might like to join in review and criticism of the above article, which has lately been almost completely rewritten and greatly expanded. It was in a rather sorry state (in my opinion), but editor Dreadstar and a few others have done a fine job improving it. There is still some controversy about various sourcing and WP:OR issues, so critical inputs and suggestions are especially welcome, especially suggestions about reliable references that should be cited. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article itself is temporarily locked due to the dispute, so we will be limited to discussion on the talk page for a bit, but that is probably what we need anyhow at this point. Wwheaton (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Date of Death
He died this morning. Today is March 18. Why does the date keep getting switched to the 19th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.33.54 (talk • contribs)  22:34, March 18, 2008
 * Come on. Don't make unthoughtful comments here. Just think about it. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the question unthoughtful, just the user was a little confused. As stated below he died on the morning of the 19th, at 1:30am, in Sri Lankan local time. (As sourced from here) Tagert (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well its not difficult to work out that India is ahead of America not behind it. Your source confirms this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say hi to everybody else undoing the seemingly endless stream of "typo corrections". Hi! 209.97.85.233 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Some Anonymous Editor.

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

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


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

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


 * He lived the greater part of his life in Sri Lanka. It's entirely possible that he just happened to be in India when he died; but the reports say he died in SL.  I suspect the confusion was from some ignorant journo who didn't know that SL is not a part of India but a separate, independent republic.   --  JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He clearly stated his intention never to leave Sri Lanka again in his December 2007 message, due to his declining health. Wwheaton (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states he died at 1:30 AM in Sri Lanka on the 18th. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article states he died at 1:30AM in Sri Lanka, which was the 19th at the time. The article is posted in a U.S. timezone, hence the 18th of March publication. Tagert (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How many citations does it need? See this which says he died early Wednesday. (notlate Wednesday/Early Thursday) Quit changing it to the 19th. That is inaccurate.++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Wednesday around the world is known as the 19th of March. Please get your facts straight. Tagert (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Interesting. Clarke grumbled in print about residing in a non-integral time zone (i.e., it was 30 minutes offset from neighboring zones). WHPratt (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Here's the text:


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Reverted. Thank you for your edit. I have restored this wholesale deletion of the Arthur C. Clarke.  I have seen this sub-section directly referenced tonight as a clarifying statement against the allegations.  The sub-section has stood for a very long time and provides clarity and states clearly that the allegations were false and retracted.
 * Deleting such material creates a situation of confusion, by not directly providing the information. This edit had the side-effect of removing every mention of "Knighthood" from the article.  By all means please do suggest improvements (perhaps best prepared+discussed on this Talk: page—given the sensitivity of the subject matter).  Think improve, not destroy.  Once again, thank you for enthusiastically helping to try and improve Wikipedia.  —Sladen (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

Agree with last contributor. The sources currently cited (a) seem to come from SF community newsletters rather than the mainstream media, and additionally (b) do not seem to provide the clear evidence required that the Mirror explicitly retracted as stated in the article. Nandt1 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the BBC News reference that got dropped during User:Sdedeo's edits. Possibly the other less import references could be removed now.  —Sladen (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest you double check that BBC link as it did not work when I tried it. Nandt1 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm ? —Sladen (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this link work for other users? I keep getting error messages: page not found. Nandt1 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I get errors too. Autarch (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CBE/KBE
I understand he was made a CBE in 1989 and a KBE in 1998. If the article lists him as a Sir, why is his KBE not mentioned? Doesn't KBE supersede his CBE? --Gordon (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He was never made a KBE, merely a knight bachelor which carries no postnominal letters.  His CBE still stands, though.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that at the time this question was raised, the heading covering his knighthood had been deleted from the article. (See Talk: section immediately above).  —Sladen (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm not an expert. Google does turn up references to KBE but I suppose this is just general confusion. It's mentioned both on iMDB and a cached version of www.clarkefoundation.org/acc/vita.php Cheers--Gordon (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've expanded on this question slightly in the article, in relation to the other knighthood-related edits discussed above. Hope it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo
Must we really have a photo with someone's advertising splashed across it? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. John (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Context is everything here. Read on.


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


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


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

Clarke's Death Day
Shouldn't Clarke's date of death be the 18th of March, rather than the 19th? In the code is says to note the timezone, But if we do that then he actually died on the 17th of March - the source says the 18th at 1:30 AM, so subtracting the 5:30 hours for the timezone would put him the day before. Besides, shouldn't death be noted in reference to the location they died in? It seems inappropriate to impose some other time zone on people's deaths 129.241.135.52 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Lee Webb
 * See the above entry for this here. Arthur C. Clarke died on the 19th of March at 1:30am local Sri Lankan time. Tagert (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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


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

His comments about pederasty
. . . seem to have been inadvertently omitted. Furthermore, the passing allusion - and dismissal - of the dustup about his relations with youths grossly misrepresents the facts. In the Mirror interview, the man is reported to have said "'Once they have reached the age of puberty, it is OK... It doesn't do any harm.' 'I am trying to think of the youngest boy I have ever had because, of course, you can't tell it here. I think most of the damage comes from the fuss made by hysterical parents afterwards. If the kids don't mind, fair enough.'" He is clearly talking about his relations with adolescent boys, legal still in Sri Lanka. Why are we being bashful about these things? Haiduc (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarke denied ever making that statement, and The Mirror retracted their claim that he is a pedophile, so how exactly is the article misrepresenting facts? Your quote has no merit if Clarke never claims to have said it, and the Mirror admits they were wrong. The359 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you document the denial? What specifically did he deny and in what terms? As for the retraction, he clearly is no pedophile since he is discussing pederastic relations, so it has no relevance to my argument - I never claimed he was a pedophile. Haiduc (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talk archive for discussion of this ad nauseum. --Rpresser 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, with the quote "He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia." Seems like a pretty clear denial to me.  For good measure, Link, with the quote "I categorically state that The Sunday Mirror's article is grossly defamatory and contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false, grossly inaccurate and extremely harmful."  Both are cited in the article.  I suggest you find another source to support your "facts". The359 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The archives are by no means clear cut. There is ample evidence to categorize him as bisexual. There is also NO evidence that he repudiated his statements at any point, only that he repudiated the accusations, which is a VERY different matter. The facts remain facts. The paper reported his statements and made certain accusations. He repudiated the accusations but not the statements. And he asserted that he has had sex with males. What more do you want??? Haiduc (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence. Cogent, hard evidence. This is an encyclopedia. We do not make bricks without straw. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Playboy: "Have you had bisexual experience yourself?" Clarke: "Of course!" Haiduc (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "...contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false" That's pretty damn clear evidence that he denies the statements.  So no, the facts do not remain the facts, since you seem to only be going off of a single article which was later retracted.  Clarke's statement that he abhorred child sex would also seem to indicate that the statements the Daily Mirror claims were false.


 * Also, an uncited Playboy article in which they ask if he's ever had an experience hardly makes one bisexual. It's called experimentation for a reason. The359 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)A soft-core mag is a reliable source? I think not. What is a "bisexual experience"? A sexual experience is either with the opposite sex, in which case it's a heterosexual experience, or the same sex, in which case it's a homosexual experience. There's no such things as a "bisexual experience". In any event, what would it prove? Very little. He could have been lying or joking, and given Clarke's intelligence and Playboy's journalistic credentials, I guess I know which side the balance lies here.-- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked for a source, you got a source. You want to do original research and present your well thought out analysis of the source, do it and publish it and then we'll use it. Until then please restrict yourself to sourced statements. Haiduc (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked, as any editor is entitled to do, for a reliable source. I didn't get one. And source for what proposition? Since you mention original research, I'll remind you of synthesis. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose that you expect people to give interviews about their private lives in scholarly journals?! An unrepudiated interview in Playboy is as good a source as any, unless you show me some Wikipedia exclusion for that particular magazine. Haiduc (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect that if you are going to make claims that Clarke is factually into pederasty, he'd be unashamed to say it. Same with bisexuality.  You haven't even cited where in Playboy this is from.  You're also making assumptions based on small statements. The359 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * from WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." Now how does this fit in with Playboy? I'd say consensus is against you on this one. I'm wondering why you think it's so important to get this issue into the article at all costs. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion has shifted from pederasty to bisexuality, based on the archives. I am not making assumptions, I am taking the man at his word. Haiduc (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're putting words in his mouth. To claim to have a bisexual experience does not, by default, make one bisexual.  And the Mirror's "words" have not only been retracted and unproven, but also denied by Clarke himself.  Take the man at his word there. The359 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rodhullandemu, you are toying with a POV tag. There is no source more appropriate for a discussion of sexuality than a magazine known for its focus on sexuality. Playboy has always had a serious, responsible side, covering art and politics - you are off base with your attempt to "disqualify" it as a source. The359, you are splitting hairs. You are off base to try to reduce ACC to some sort of pablum - he was a genius with a free mind and a free body, according to his own words; let's respect that and let's report on that honestly. Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, more assumptions. He has an open and free mind so he has to be bisexual?  Hell, where does Clarke say he even enjoyed his bisexual experience, or that he had more than one, or that he would ever consider having one again.  Provide some sources already. The359 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: there are two totally separate issues. One is Clarke and paedophilia; the other is Clarke's "unconventional lifestyle" and so forth. I think in general, discussion and speculation on the latter can be a lot freer than speculation on the former. There's no shame, and Clarke apparently thought so as well, with being gay or what-have-you; that's a million miles away from child abuse. We need to keep the two very separate. My guess, as I said above, is that the paedophilia story is just the standard-issue slur against gay men (or men whose sexuality is not robustly heterosexual -- viz. French slang for "gay" is "pede.") Just because news outlets (even the BBC, rather shockingly) want to link the two ("although he was probably not a pederast, he might have been gay"), it is wrong for us to follow suit. Sdedeo (tips) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bisexuality, unproven or real, does not equate paedophilia. Neither do retracted and denied accusations, or should we include a gossip section next to the trivia section?. Haiduc's comments scream of obvious agenda and zero encyclopedic worth. Let it go.91.109.114.87 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with your first sentence. On the other hand, the "unconventional" nature of his life has come up in reliable sources (I consider Playboy, by the way, pretty close to an RS, but more are needed); there's no harm in discussing it in the same way we do so for plenty of other characters (Lord Byron, etc. etc.) Sdedeo (tips) 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no harm in discussion, just that sources are required before we can claim that these are things in which Clarke himself believed. Really, I think to classify someone as bisexual, that person should actually consider themself to be bisexual, and not have us merely assume. The359 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing his bisexuality now, not pedophilia or pederasty, and if the only reaction here continues to be retrenchment and denial then we will have to expand this into an AfC action. It would be better to stop throwing up defenses and to ask yourselves why you are so intent on censuring this person you seem to be interested in documenting. Haiduc (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're more then welcome to denial because you have yet to offer any proof of your claim. One source with a two word statement by Clarke does not make him bisexual.  Provide another source. The359 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Representing this as "denial" seems a little POV & ad hominem to me. The issue is what needs to be said about Clarke that can be reliably and verifiably sourced. Thus far, all we have is a vague quotation from Playboy, and I think we will need something a lot more cogent than that. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the appearance of arguing ad hominem - it was really in response to an earlier ad hominem comment questioning my motives, I should not have taken the bait. The fact remains that his sexuality has been an object of attention in the media over the years and that is not reflected here. The various objections to his crystal clear and enthusiastic revelation of his bisexual interests and history (the "Of course!" speaks volumes) are part and parcel of the well known phenomenon known as bisexual erasure. I suggest you read up on it. Haiduc (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that wasn't waht you were doing at all, check your original post and topic title, you accused him of being a paedophile with discredited and denied stories, then watered down your position. I personally couldn't care less if he was bisexual or gay at all, but there is no evidence, verifiable or even speculative, to support either. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip coloumn and your repeated attempts to force the issue without bringing any encyclopedic evidence, smacks of agenda. You've been told repeatedly you need verifiable sources and have provided none. Nobody here is ducking the issue or skirting around it, the fact remains until you can source your claims, there IS no issue. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I revised my position about his pederasty based on others' arguments. As for the rest of your argument, I don't think you have read my comments carefully, or your notions about proper evidence are based on standards alien to Wikipedia work. Haiduc (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Dang, this "conversation" is hard to follow. The Playboy interview is online (and a good read), with the quote in question on the 4th page. An interview in Playboy is a reliable source. Does that mean he's bisexual? No, but it does say something interesting about him and his attitude toward sexuality. Cretog8 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is repeatedly stated in these exchanges that the Mirror retracted its claims, but I am waiting to see a source cited (hopefully a credible one) that actually states this categorically. The closest I have seen so far is a statement in one of the sources, attributed to the Sri Lankan investigators, that the Mirror did not comply with their request for a copy of the alleged interview, but that does not constitute a retraction. Nandt1 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I cannot find a source which has the Mirror's retraction, Clarke's later statements and the investigation by the police would still render the Mirror's claim as moot. The359 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)It only becomes relevant if you believe the original Mirror report to be worthy of any credence anyway. Suffice it to say that if their allegations ever had legs, they didn't run, and that, at least, is well-documented. Furthermore, a failure of evidence that an allegation is retracted cannot possibly suffice as proof of the allegation itself. That is, as they say, nonsense on stilts. Some perspective, here, please. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the article said that the Mirror retracted, and there's no basis for that statement. No one has been able to find a reliable source that says the Mirror issued a retraction.  I've cut that part of the sentence.  If, indeed, a reliable source is found for the retraction, it should be re-added. The part about being cleared by the Sri Lanka authorities is well-sourced, and remains. TJRC (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More smoke and mirrors - being cleared of illegal acts says nothing about his possible relations with boys above the age of consent (12 in Ceylon for much of his stay there). Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For which you've yet to provide a reliable source, and I guess it's up to you, because you're the only one to whom it really seems to matter, for some reason. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been reverted (Reverted good faith edits by Cesar Tort; Rv, the "accusation" was "paedophilia", because the Daily Mirror didn't know the difference). However, since ephebophilia with 17-18 year olds is not illegal in some countries, something must be done in article not to give the impression that Clarke was a pedo (he wasn't). Otherwise the claim looks far more slanderous. —Cesar Tort 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted you. The Mirror accused him of paedophilia. Not ephebophilia. We report facts here. It's clear the Mirror was wrong, but we report what they said, not what they should have said. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax deal with Sri Lanka
I visited the article page to find out more about a special tax deal apparently struck between Arthur C. Clarke and the Sri Lankan tax authorities, which I was told went under the name of "Lex Clarke". The closest I could find to that was this page, and the relevant paragraph was this: Living in Sri Lanka as a "failed recluse", he was granted unique tax-free status after he persuaded the authorities to enact the Resident Guest Scheme (popularly known as "the Arthur Clarke law") permitting prominent foreigners who bring in hard currency to enjoy minimal taxes and a variety of perks. Would someone more experienced than I care to take a look and see whether it is worth including? I certainly found it interesting, and was surprised not to find it here. OldManLink (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Footer
I changed the footer from

to

Let me know what people think Remember (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking out the Nicole Wakefield link. There are no pages for HAL or Dave Bowman linked on the footer who are massively more notable than her, and as all her appearences were in books co-written with Gentry Lee, she's even less notable in a solely ACC footer. I'd also suggest maybe linking the 2001 Marvel comics adaptation under the adaptation box too. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Other suggestions? Remember (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Under adaptations, you've linked 2010: Odyssey Two to the book article, not the film (2010: The Year We Make Contact) I's change it myself but don't know how! Sorry! 91.109.114.87 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just done it, didn't realise it'd be that simple, as i'm new to the wiki. 91.109.114.87 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious World page, it was followed up by Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Universe. As we have the previous two series, should we include this, even though it's red-linked? Especially as there are other red-links above. Good work on the template anyway! 91.109.114.87 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion. I'm happy to add it and happy not to add it.  I defer to others. Remember (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone just edited and I reverted, the Vandemonde books aren't really a series as such. I'd maybe suggest they were put into the list of regular books. It's kind of like (to my mind) including "The Sentinal" short story in the 2001 series category. I've only read The City and the Stars though, so can't comment authoritatively. 91.109.74.131 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also for similar reasons, i'd probably put The Lost Worlds of 2001 out of the 2001 series. I wouldn't even put it under novels, but actually non-fiction (even though it's a mix) as it's predominately a working account of the genesis of the film and novel, with the fiction sections as out-takes and more used as documentary evidence of the writing process. Again, this is a decision based on opinion so i'd maybe get a consensus. Anyone agree or disagree? 91.109.74.131 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lastly I put the red linked show Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Universe at the bottom. it is redlinked, but so are another number of articles in the footer, and it is mentioned in those articles and relinked there too. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure of the publication dates of the Vandemonde books beyond their year, which they share with a few other books in the footer. if anyone can confirm if they were rleased before or after books in that same year (such as Childhood's End for Against the Fall of Night) please move before/after, or does this even matter? 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally i've linked the earlier Rendevouz with Rama game to the book article, but don't know how to directly link to the other media secion of that page where the content is. If anyone can, please do. I know i'm including things that don't have pahes, but the footer should be a guide and the content should be there, the only question should be whether to redlink or plaintext them. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Different footer question: where's Profiles of the Future? Mike Christie (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just added. Sorry for the wholesale butchery, but I didn't recieve any responses from my earlier questions, so just went ahead. 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a frequent editor here and have no strong opinion, but it looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither! Just done my last edit for the day. Put in "The Odyssey File" which is a counterpart in sorts to "the Lost Worlds" I've had the same issue as I have with the Rama 1984 game link in that I don't know how to link directly to the further reading section of the 2010 film article in lieu of a dedicated page. Could someone please fix these two? Thanks! 91.110.58.220 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I agree with your beliefs about him, but we need a reliable published source in order to be able to include any material, especially material that some "well-intentioned" people will challenge unless properly documented. Haiduc (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you lose the attitude that everyone is against you and your opinion. Wikipedia's policy of requiring valid sourcing for disputed facts is in use everywhere.  This is not an issue of pro-, anti-, or anything in regards to sexuality.  This is simply about providing facts about a person's life without having assumptions and personal opinions. The359 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:V and WP:RS then come back if you still want to add that info. Btw it was Alan Turing, not "Turning", a fine Freudian slip if ever I saw one! --John (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please add valid references that can factually claim his sexual orientation (please see discussions above). Because he fits certain "gay Brits of his generation" stereotypes is not proof. The359 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm assuming you mean "discreet" and Alan Turing. Now, we've already spent a great deal of time here today discussing ACC's sexuality, and the consensus is that, as with ALL Wikipedia articles, only that which is reliably sourced can go into the article. Not rumour, not synthesis from other sources, and certainly not common knowledge. It is unbecoming of you, and a breach of civility policy to assume that none of us editing here is themselves in the same position. All you need to do is provide a reliable, verifiable source, for your proposed inclusions, and there is no problem. But the WikiProject LGBT does not "out" people against the evidence and against their self-declared sexuality (if any), and neither should any other editor. I suppose now he's dead and can't sue, any old unsupported rubbish might appear here. But it won't. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said sir! This is an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. The person with the agenda is the earlier editor who was inserting claims on his sexuality based solely on their own presumptions NOT the editors taking out homosexual references that have NO citations or supporting evidence. Personally I wholeheartedly believe he in all probability was homsexual, but that doesn't mean it is the case with 100% certainty and as a result should NOT be inculded in this article until something arises to support it. In addition to the John Barrowman reference, David Bowie has had many admitted bisexual experiences, but describes himself as exclusively hetrosexual (and actually said he was a 'closet hetrosexual')in the 70s. An admitted bisexual 'experience' does not make one bisexual. Who knows, maybe something will surface when ACC's will is read? 91.109.114.87 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for the clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

"Who hasn't? Good God! If anyone had ever told me that he hadn't, I'd have told him he was lying. But then, of course, people tend to 'forget' their encounters. I don't want to go into detail about my own life, but I just want it to be noted I have a rather relaxed sympathetic attitude about it — and that's something I've not really said out loud before. Let's move on." pp. 340-341 —Cesar Tort 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to back what has been said before, that he has had a bisexual experience. I'm not sure what you mean by legal bisexuality, since having an experience does not make one bisexual.  It seems to me, as has been said before, that Clarke's sexuality is almost impossible to accurately classify, and if someone wants to discuss his sexuality in the article, then the most factual answer is that he has had experiences with both sexes but that his sexual orientation is left unanswered. The359 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * The logic in this discussion is impeccable. The man has had bisexual experiences therefore he is not bisexual! Brilliant! Why did I not think of it myself?! Haiduc (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I went swimming twenty years ago. Therefore, I am a swimmer now. Really? -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Haiduc misrepresents the logic. It is not "if bisexual experience, therefor not bisexual."  All that's being said here is that it is not "if bisexual experience, therefore bisexual."  Putting it another way, not all who have had a bisexual experience are bisexual.  And, for that matter, not all who are bisexual have had bisexual experiences (just as many heterosexuals may be virgins).  Do you see the distinction?   I don't particularly give a fig whether Clarke was bisexual.  But before we label someone as a bisexual, we'd really like to have some basis for it, don't you think?  TJRC (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I follow you Rod. . . he was ninety when he died. . . he could not have had much sex in the last twenty years. . . YES! That's it! He aged out of his bisexuality. I stand corrected. As for TJRC, I beg to differ, it is not that I misrepresent the logic, it is that using the word "logic" here misrepresents the process we seem to be going through. But leaving all irony aside, at what point do you imagine that someone becomes bisexual? When their relationships are split evenly down the middle, fifty/fifty? Or when they have lots of sex so there can be lots of examples? I am sorry to inform you that bisexuality occupies that rather large space between the two extremes of exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality. If you fall anywhere within that range you are de facto bisexual. Why is everyone here running away from acknowledging that the man had wideranging tastes. I would imagine that you should rather be adverse to having him described as heterosexual; or homosexual, either of which would diminish the man. Haiduc (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a well-sourced statement that the man had wideranging tastes, any more than I do to a well-sourced statement that he was bisexual. We are not "running away" from anything other than unsourced speculation. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when are the man's own words in an interview "unsourced speculation"? Haiduc (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be, but so far, you've been unable to come up with any source that indicates that Clarke said he is bisexual. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarke is bisexual when he considers himself bisexual. No more, no less.  Having a bisexual experience does not mean that Clarke believes himself to be bisexual, any more than (as I mentioned before) John Barrowman is bisexual because he has had sex with women, but considers himself homosexual.


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


 * I don't thinks there's a problem mentioning that he had bisexual experiences but we shouldn't call him a bisexual (or for that matter hetrosexual) person unless there is a reliable source in which either he identifies as such or is described as such. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No arguement, mentioning his acknowledgement of having previous experiences is perfectly fine. The359 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several apparent "hints" by his own hand in the essays of "Greetings Carbon-based Bipeds", not least "The Gay Warlords" chapter (although some may be easily misinterpreted because they were written at a time when words had different meaning), but I agree one should not be raking for this sort of thing with anyone, with what is essentially a private matter [PEC]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.0.152 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hints" require interpretation and violate the policy of no original research.Novangelis (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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


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


 * What The359 said, exactly. Right now, the claim of retraction is not verifiable in any source and should be left out.  This is an entirely different question from whether Clarke was cleared; this is about whether the Mirror retracted.
 * I've moved this discussion into a separate section, because I see instances above where the discussion of the existence of the retraction is being confused with the issue of Clarke's sexuality itself. They are related, of course, but distinct, and I think discussing them in the same section, especially such a lengthy one, is confusing certain editors.
 * Also, the ideal and authoritative source for the retraction would be the retraction itself, as printed in the Mirror, rather than another periodical reporting it. The latter is hearsay.  We cite to hearsay all the time, and this isn't a court, so there's nothing wrong with that. But there's always the concern about whether that source characterized it correctly, got all the facts straight, is reliable, etc.   In a perfect world, I'd have this supported by two cites: one to the retraction itself in the print copy of Mirror; and one to another article that refers to it and is available online. But to make it clear, my call for a cite to the retraction in the Mirror itself is a suggestion to improve the support for the inclusion of the retraction; any reporting of the retraction from a reliable source  is sufficient for the retraction to be included in the article. TJRC (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not too up on reliability of the Australian press but this might fit the bill. Comments? -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. TJRC (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What if they used Wikipedia as their only source? 89.76.77.128 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it would be no good. If you have any information that they've done so, please provide it. TJRC (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the list of Clarke's works at the end of the article. It is a direct copy & paste from Wikipedia 'Partial bibliography' section. For example entry for An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is quoted in extenso, with an ISBN and non-working 'Online Version' link.83.28.156.16 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, the GFDL would strictly require attribution; since responsible journalists generally attribute sources, and the article isn't attributed, we assume they got it elsewhere. The alternative is that they are irresponsible journalists, but I see no evidence of that; the cited article, for example, seems to be moderately written and truthful. We would need evidence of plagiarism or a reputation for unreliability to make this citation unreliable. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the GFDL doesn't enter into it. It only applies where the GFDL-licensed work (in this case, the WP Clarke article) is used in the copyright sense; i.e., copied, adapted, distributed, or publicly performed or displayed.  Copyright doesn't protect facts.  An author cannot obtain an otherwise unavailable right to condition use of facts publicly disclosed in his work by wrapping it in the GFDL or any other license.  But I digress.  TJRC (talk)

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


 * I think it's worthy of mention. It was a very big deal at the time, and many people will know of it.  It's worth documenting the outcome. TJRC (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worthy to mention merely in explaining the delay and change in his presentation of knighthood. But only just in mentioning. The359 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but we shouldn't emphasise it and the outcome should be described in unequivocal terms. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Written accusations such as this one are a sort of nasty rhetoric that makes the reader feel that the accused might be somewhat guilty after all. —Cesar Tort 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, let's keep our "Mirror retraction" in perspective. At this stage, the main story quotes the (Australian) Daily Telegraph as our (so far, apparently only) externally published source for the Mirror retraction. That is fine as far as it goes, and as long as we keep the explicit reference to the source I am not suggesting that we change it. But just think realistically about the probabilities for a moment. An Australian newspaper prints a fairly perfunctory story on Clarke -- part of which (the partial bibliography) has apparently already been shown by another Wkipedia contributor to have been copied directly from Wikipedia. Ask yourself what is more probable? (a) That in the course of preparing this quite brief piece, an Australian journalist was able to come across that crucial piece of primary evidence of the Mirror's retraction that has so far eluded numerous highly motivated contributors to the present Wikipedia site? or (b) That working against a tight deadline on a short piece, he/she copied the bit about the retraction from Wikipedia like other parts of the story (making this in effect a piece of circular sourcing from an earlier version of our own story)? Sorry to be blunt, but in terms of evidence we are skating on pretty thin ice here. Nandt1 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can be bothered later, i'll post multiple links of news sites mentioning the Mirror retraction. I had a look last week and found about 10 stories within 15 minutes of looking, some contemporary, and some obits. I think it's a bit arrogant for us to assume this article is suddenly the basis for all the world's journalists. Is it really surprising we can't find a link to the actual retraction text either? Do you think the Mirror would publicise their error? Try to find any pre-2000 retractions online and i'm sure you'll come equally a cropper. If anyone could be arsed doing some REAL research, rather than Googling and copy/pasting (and we wonder why the Wiki has a bad name) it'd be easy to pop down to a library and search microfilmed/scanned copies of the Sunday Mirror or even send their press office an email. Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist! 91.110.58.220 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a good site but requires subscription which I'm not prepared to pay, but if any journalists here use it, it has a complete archive of the Sunday Mirror from 1996 - http://www.newsuk.co.uk, also here's the original vitriol filled Sunday Mirror article - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980201/ai_n14474888, here's a citation about all 3 'victims' officially withdrawing their accusations - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_asia/74938.stm, interview with Clarke about the accusations - http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,101983,00.html, and here's another retraction citation - http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8604, and another - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/db1904.xml.91.110.58.220 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Childhood's End
In Clarke's authorized biography, McAlleer writes that: "many readers and critics still consider Arthur C. Clarke's best novel" (Childhood's End). When Life (magazine) published a piece by Clarke in September 1992, it stated: Among his best-known works are Childhood's End and 2001: A Space Odyssey". I guess this should be reflected in the article? —Cesar Tort 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just received the following article, "Clarke's Thinking was out of this world", from John C. Sherwood, a journalist and long-time admirer of Clarke.  It includes an anecdote from Sherwood's past re C.S.Lewis:


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


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

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

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

Robert Bramham

"The Star" in Sri Lanka high school English textbook
This passage is awkward:

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

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

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

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


 * While gamma ray bursts are interesting – particularly the one which was bright enough to see unaided – they don't really have anything to do with Clarke. Adam McMaster (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you've never read The Star, nor that part of the current article that quotes his televised remarks on the Star of Bethlehem. Nor his being quoted as saying, "I sometimes think that the universe is a machine designed for the perpetual astonishment of astronomers." Nor, for that matter, the part about his interest in the paranormal. Even so, you're right: The gamma ray bursts had nothing to do with Clarke as he was dead. (Unless it was a Rendezvous with Rama.) Pawyilee (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. The big one was GRB 080319B. Pawyilee (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of GRBs every year, often arriving on the same day in widely dispersed parts of the sky. You're seeing a coincidence. --Rpresser 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, why do you think the lead-in word was "Coincidentally"? Pawyilee (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. You could have also used "irrelevantly."  Both are words that provide big clues that it doesn't belong in the article. TJRC (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While GRBs are detected by the dozens every year, four in one day is a record. And the Big One was detected by the Swift satellite at 06:12 UTC on March 19, 2008, awfully close to the time of Clarke's death (BTW, did anyone ever establish just what time that was?) But if the consensus is that this is not even worthy of a footnote to his remark, "that the universe is a machine designed for the perpetual astonishment of astronomers," then at least my astonishment is memorialized here. Pawyilee (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. GRB 080319B has been amended to add: "It has recently been suggested that this spectacle be named the Clarke Event, as it occurred just hours before the death of noted science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke was announced." So, if a consensus develops among astronomers and their ilk to call one out of the four "The Clarke Event", will that sway the consensus here? Pawyilee (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

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

Ahh, now I know who they are - the brother and family of ACC's former partner:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-arthur-c-clarke-sciencefiction-writer-best-known-for-2001-a-space-odyssey-798319.html

"Leslie Ekanayake, who shared his passion for skin-diving, was his companion for many years until his death in 1977 in a motorcycle accident. Leslie's brother, with his wife and children, then shared Clarke's home. But he maintained his privacy until the end." 78.105.171.126 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Companion" and "partner" are qualitatively different and we should not extrapolate from one to the other. I have a "companion" who pushes me about from time to time, but she is not my "partner". -- Rodhull andemu  18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'companion' is a synonym for 'partner', according to wikictionary and OED. Did you read the Indy article, the implication is quite clear. 78.105.171.126 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They may think it appropriate to make that implication; but they are journalists, and this is an encyclopedia, using only reliable sources. Not implication, not rumour and not "he must be". -- Rodhull andemu  16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here, are you: a) saying the source is unsuitable (correct, that's why I posted it here and not on the main article); b) "Companion" and "partner" are qualitatively different (incorrect, according to the dictionaries); c) their is a (shock horror) implication in the Indy article that they were lovers (I'm not especially interested, and didn't suggest that be put in the article).
 * I posted the link as a stimulus to research the adoptive family question. It's mentioned in the main article, but with no details - this is an omission. I did not suggest the reference I supplied be put on the main article, if I felt it was reliable I would place it myself.
 * You're jumping my use of a synonym for 'companion' instead of the word itself (a thousand apologies) on a talk page, NB not the article itself, seems over zealous. Especally since all I am trying to do is stimulate research into the adoptive family 78.105.171.126 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I find you hypocritical - ie your edit of '20:30, 27 March 2008', where you provide a source for ACC's motivation for moving to Sri Lanka. This reference is nothing more that an opinion piece on an extremely 'minor' website, certainly not a reliable source. Yet I am criticized for posting a similar opinion piece from a far more respected source to a talk page (not to the main page)!! I suggest you take some of your own medicine, and in future I shall be checking your edits against the high bar you set for others. When you fall below you will be challenged 78.105.171.126 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's start with some context here. Since Clarke's death there have been many attempts to imply that Clarke was gay based on thin evidence indeed, and those attempts have been resisted to the extent of repeatedly blocking multiple sockpuppets of a banned user. The article you cite does not mention the word "partner"; you introduced that above. The word used was "companion" which in the circumstances is a more neutral term. Just because a dictionary uses different words for a concept does not mean that those words are equivalent, simply because words have connotations as well as denotations, and that is what we are trying to avoid here. They may be the same to you, but I suggest you are missing that point. The article you cite specifically says "Lingering questions about the nature of Clarke's sexuality seemed merely intrusive". Quite. There is no objection to inserting facts into the article about Ekanayake being a companion and his brother's family moving in after his death. But we should use neutral wording to avoid drawing conclusions from those facts. If you really feel like auditing my edits, I stand by most of the 20,400+ of them, and wish you a happy hunt. Here are my links: and if you also wish to check that I'm doing my job as an admin properly, here are my blocks and page protections: . WP:RFC is open for business 24/7. Meanwhile, I have work to do. Thanks. -- Rodhull  andemu  15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, so perhaps you could add the details re the 'Adoptive Family' to the main article (excluding any connotation they were lovers). I stand by my assertion that your source for '20:30, 27 March 2008' is flimsy (I suspect the bar here is controversy, not reliability). It is not controversial to assert that ACC moved to Sri Lanka for the diving, so apparently a questionable source can be used as evidence. This does, however, raise more general questions about the reliability of Wikipedia articles - it appears easy to assert opinion as fact, provided that opinion is non-controversial.
 * Contrast this with opinion expressed, for example, by ACC's biographers. Are they more expert in ACC's life and motivations that the author of that diving site? If he is an expert, I see no documentation to support it (personal friend, expert in ACC?). 78.105.171.126 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail in 1984?
Currently the article states "Clarke's email correspondence with Hyams was published in 1984". It seems somewhat unlikely, e-mail correspondence in 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.62.140 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Email was an uncommon technology. That is part of the novelty. Novangelis (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had email access in 1984. It wasn't Internet email, and was not convenient, but it existed.  I think mine was offered by Dow-Jones, if I recall correctly.  With Clarke in Sri Lanka since 1956, I would be surprised if he wasnt' an early adopter of it. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Absolutely and totally true (but you meant Sri Lanka, not San Francisco). Clarke used a Kaypro II (ah, remember those "transportable" numbers?) and a modem to correspond with Peter Hyams. Here  is one link that spells it all out. By the way, The Source was founded in 1979, with email, and there were numerous others - as well as the fledgling internet that connected university nodes. Tvoz | talk 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, i reverted that change to the main article as that site says on its main page that it's obsolete. I do not know if it can be used as a quality reference, but i think not in these circumstances. I think it should stay here on the talk page for a while and let people poke and prod it. Galaad2 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. and from what archive.org is saying it's been marked as obsolete for more than a year now, since April 7th, 2007: archive.org link Galaad2 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the main page says so, but the link works perfectly well and serves to answer questions such as the one that started this thread.This is not controversial and I've also added another reference to the book in question. Tvoz / talk 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The City and the Stars
Below the opening photo it's stated:

Notable work(s) 2001: A Space Odyssey Rendezvous with Rama Childhood's End The Fountains of Paradise

I'd say that The City and the Stars is more notable than The Fountains of Paradise, at least for Clarke's standards. Shouldn't we replace it? Cesar Tort 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, though it is debatable. But how would one decide? It also depends on the epoch of notability, as several of the early novels were quite good (Earthlight ?), though now time has passed them by. I would personally order the list of novels as first CE, then 2001 (considering the novel and the film as really complementary parts of one work), then Rama or Fountains or Songs of Distant Earth as candidates; but would hate to leave out the body of wonderful short stories entirely, which I would have to rank with any one of the novels after 2001. Not to mention the excellent early non-fiction works, now almost forgotten, like The Exploration of Space and Interplanetary Flight. Wwheaton (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I'm sorry Examineroftruth, but not knowing anything about Novangelis previously and going purely off the merits of the information, it seems YOU are trolling bu putting religious information in, such as the FALSE information that putting religious names in Hammer of God equates religious interest/views, when he's clearly stated the Hindu deity names are because in the tiemframe of the novel, he imagined all the Greek/Roman gods would have been used up and is simply predicting astological naming trends. In his funeral he CLEARLY stated that he wanted NO religious commentry or rites and has been widely quoted saying religion is a stage of childishness in our society we have to grow out of. If anything it seems you're projecting here, accuses Novangelis of trolling when you in fact are, and putting words in ACC's mouth when alle vidence points to the opposite. 91.110.53.170 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And checking the Mininova link, you're clearly an agenda-ridden religious fundamentalist. How you can dare accuse others of agenda is incredible and anything you have to say now has no validity for me. Repeatedly deleting innacurate and agenda-ridden faith-based edits does not equal trolling. I heartlily support Novangelis' edits here. 91.110.53.170 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Project / Rediff Article
Since the status of his sexual orientation is still being disputed adding the project to his page is premature. Q T C 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there's a bit of an edit war happening, but this looks like collateral damage. I don't see what the problem is. Cretog8 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, synchronization problems, sorry. That was from before I saw your response. Not sure what you mean about disputed, whether you mean the pedophile dispute or something else. In any case, it's a matter of interest, so I think it's appropriate. For instance, there's a note about this page on the project talk page. Cretog8 (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the additions about his alleged pedophilia use Rediff as a citation. From the cited Rediff article: "was quoted as saying in the interview published in London's Sunday Mirror that having sex with children was all right."
 * From the WP page: "because of an accusation, by the British tabloid The Sunday Mirror, of paedophilia.[33] [34] The charge was subsequently found to be baseless by the Sri Lankan police.[35][36][37][38][39][40] According to The Daily Telegraph (London), the Mirror subsequently published an apology.".
 * If ACC was still alive, trying to push the quote that is being added as truth would be a serious BLP violation. None the less, it has no standing and should not be included.  Q  T C 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what I meant by collateral damage. I think the way that quote's being put in is entirely inappropriate. I'm not talking about the Rediff article, but the tag. There is good reason to think Clarke was gay or bisexual, including the quote from Moorcock. Cretog8 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with it being added as long as it conforms to the existing policies about reliable sources. Q  T C 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From Toby Johnson [here http://www.tobyjohnson.com/arthurcclarke.html]:
 * "'I corresponded with Clarke for several years. I wrote about his post-religious spirituality in a couple of my books and cleared my acknowledgement of his sexual identity with him. So I have no qualms about my including him in the pantheon of homosexual seers ... He demurred about coming out publicly as gay, he wrote, because he felt this fact would be used to discredit his ideas.'"
 * What's that suppose to be saying .. that he 'cleared' his homosexual author friend to confirm his gay sexuality in print because he definitely wasn't gay?? Or could it um, be, um, because he, er, was gay? Do let us know.
 * Nice WP:GAMEing to keep that unpopular fact and its sourcing out of the article so far, but gee, as he's a published and well-known author and as he's backed up and uncontroverted by other supplied WP:RS comment on the very issue now you'll have to disappear more than just Mr Johnson to maintain the strenuous LBGT-erasure and denial efforts at pace and prevail in the source-bereft edit war you're generating. EllesmereOntario (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask ourselves what sources to the deniers and erasureists have to range against the verifiable confirmations and observations of Moorcock and Johnson together?? Answer: precisely nothing. Not even anything non-flippant from 'mildly cheerful' Clarke himself. Their main strength is their vast capacity to edit-war and WP:GAME by every means to keep the information and the appropriate article-categorisations suppressed. EllesmereOntario (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not gaming the system when you ask for reliable sources for controversial edits. It's common sense.  Q  T C 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. And please, stick to the matter at hand and not make character attacks. If there truly *are* other reliable sources, then feel free to re-add and I will have no qualms. Q  T C 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Be aware that some editors do not use his sexual orientation for the intention of Arthur C. Clarke-bashing. Otherwise this topic glide down to the level of a sensational-filled tabloid. Demophon (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "For that reason". "That reason" is that "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field". Toby Johnson isn't 'anyone' 'claming to be an expert in a field'. He's an already WP:NOTABLE author with a known reputation, consequently, to protect. The brief survey of tobyjohnson.com confirms that it is his authentic personal website (referenced in Wikipedia) where he does report these things about ACC whom he'd previously written about. They are therefore as reliably attributable to him as any of his otherwise-published works. He is a known correspondent and associate of ACC who states no less than that he 'cleared' identifying ACC's gay sexuality/gay spirituality directly with ACC himself. Excuse me for being a little slow, but don't people who are NOT gay respond 'Certainly not!' when asked if they are what they are not and wouldn't they somewhat stop short of authorising their pals to write about their 'gay spirituality' or homosexual tendency or whatever you want to call it?
 * Further Dr Johnson relates the following anecdotes from another friend of Sir Arthur: "Yes, Arthur was gay – although in his era that wasn’t the term. As Isaac Asimov once told me, "I think he simply found he preferred men." Arthur didn’t publicize his sexuality – that wasn’t the focus of his life – but if asked, he was open and honest.


 * I remember on board the ship, a total stranger approached him one day, apparently having heard a homosexual rumor, and offered Arthur a silver [Lambda pin]. "Are you willing to wear this?" the fellow asked. "Delighted," was Arthur’s response. He put it on and wore it the remainder of the voyage. [Also see here].

WarAgainstRugs (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned before, the person and the info is irrelevant and does not matter to me, that it's un-cited and controversial does. Q  T C 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's abundantly cited per recorded observations/recollections of Michael Moorcock, Toby Johnson, and Kerry O'Quinn (see above). Same can't be said of the effort to represent the contrary. WarAgainstRugs (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pff, and this is 'precisely' what I was afraid for: some editors are really obsessed to suggest the sexuallity of Arthur C. Clarke for the intention of Arthur C. Clarke-bashing. The page risks to getting down to the level of a sensational-filled tabloid. Demophon (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note WarAgainstRugs and EllesmereOntario have both been blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts as suspected sockpuppets of DavidYork71. Any "new" editor seeking to introduce the same material and using similar arguments should be referred to an Administrator. -- Rodhull andemu  13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the LGBT categories have been slipped in again, without sourcing and certainly against consensus. Accordingly, they've been slipped out again. -- Rodhull andemu  19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding my voice in support of Rodhullandemu's edit and comment. Tvoz / talk 01:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just thought i'd note that the LGBT project tag does not mean Clarke is gay. It is to show editors that this article may be interesting to members of the LGBT wikiproject, which it clearly is according to the posts above. Its inclusion on the talk page should be based on whether this interest is really large enough, and whether it attracts motivated editors to improving the page (does it?).
 * Accusing people of Clarke bashing on this issue is very bad faith. Most of the editors trying to include the info seem to be doing so only because they believe it to be true and verifiable. If people are worried that calling Clarke gay is homophobic, then they should be welcoming LGBT contributions, which would presumably balance this out.Yobmod (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is important to notice that almost all of the activity in the past month or three on this issue has been due to a single editor, banned for life, with several hundred sockpuppets, both IP and otherwise. Look at the user contributions for some of the above and you will see the pattern very clearly.  I don't give a fig about whether ACC was gay, and I don't think he was uptight about it either, but I am annoyed that this person is determined to carry out his vendetta by spreading graffiti here, and I am going to do my little bit to enforce the ban.  I hate to violate the assumption of good faith, but in the case of banned sockpuppets it seems logically inevitable by definition.  "Moderately cheerfully" yours, Wwheaton (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if one users bad behaviour makes you incapable of following policy, maybe you should avoid this article? Assuming good faith is not optional.Yobmod (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is unnecessary for community-banned sockpuppeteers. By definition, they've thrown it away. Other editors may well be acting in good faith, but it's difficult to tell whether they are sockpuppets or not, however, if you spend enough time on here, you get a feel for the difference between them, and can advise the well-meaning editors about WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS. They are not the problem here. -- Rodhull andemu  16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Q
 * Quotes like "some editors are really obsessed to suggest the sexuallity of Arthur C. Clarke for the intention of Arthur C. Clarke-bashing" are hardly conducive to a good editing environment, and sock-puppetry gives no excuse to long term editors and admins to condone such accusations.Yobmod (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I invite you to look at the evidence. Wwheaton (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the evidence that he consents to being referred to as an LGBT writer (by Toby Johnson), him being described as being gay by an acquaintance (Michael Moorcock) of him and his boyfriend, and his opting to display gay pride symbols on his clothes (as confirmed by Kerry O'Quinn)? Ok, we've looked at it. What else is there?Purplediaz (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I meant the edits by the scores of recent sockpuppets of User:DavidYork71, banned for life; of which you are yet another. Good-bye; see you again no doubt.  Wwheaton (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT project (not the cats)
Just thought a speperate section should be made, as the LGBT project on the talk is entirely different from declaring him to be gay using cats. The last addition of the project says in the edit summary it is "formally accepted into project coverage." I don't know about this but i do know the LGBT project newsletter advised editors to watch this page as "evil gnomes" were removing the project.

A man with this much specualtion about his orientation is inherently of interest to this project. Also his Imperial earth is important to the history of gay SF.Yobmod (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone other than the sock of a banned user adds it then fine, but edits by such socks are liable to be reverted on sight (as I understand it). David Underdown (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, i re-added it. I avoided doing so before, as i have no interest in getting into edit wars.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose including any assertion that he is gay in the article, unless better sources can be found. I must admit I'd always assumed he was gay, but I can't find a source better than Moorcock's comment, which I don't think is enough.  However, I think it's ok to tag the article's talk page -- as Yobmod says the article's of interest to the LGBT project, and if their interest results in the discovery of sufficient reliable sources to add something to the article, then it can be added. Mike Christie (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem here. I don't think Clarke was up-tight about it, and if it's sourced adequately and done by legitimate editors, my interest fades.  (So now I see that I've been in a power struggle with a virtual editor!  Tsk, tsk... Silly me. ) Cheers (mildly, of course), Wwheaton (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page moving vandal
Anyone else noticed that the recent (3?) page move vandalism streaks all targeted a number of different articles, with only this article consitantly vandalised? Is the vandal just causing more trouble to distract from the real target: here?. Anyway - why is this possible if the page is protected?Yobmod (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The page isn't actually moved, it just an edit summary on a null edit. David Underdown (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok - i just saw it filling up my watchlist.

Good article?
Random change of topic: What do people think this article is missing to make Good article status? Looks all good to me, and the edit warring has calmed down. I see:

1. Copy edit, as always.

2. Later years is written in a time-line-y way, needs to flow better.

3. 2001: Space odysee film section is overlong. It should just be a summary of the film article. It currently mentions specific dates during the whole production. I know it is his most famous work amoungst the general public, but he did so much more, it seems unbalanced that one film that he contributed to has more written about it that all his novels. Isn't Rendezvous with Rama still the most SF-awarded book ever? Childhood's end was selected as one of the 10 best SF books ever in the masterworks series in the UK, etc.

Agree? Disagree? Anything else? Yobmod (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Atheist and agnostic?
It's written in the article, that he considers himself an atheist, so why agnostic? 80.121.84.73 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of definition issue involved here; "atheist" and "agnostic" cover quite a bit of ground, and the possible meanings do overlap a good deal. When I was 13, the Overmind presented in Childhood's End convinced me that "dogmatic atheism" was untenable, because the Overmind seems functionally indistinguishable from a god.  Of course if you insist that the word "god" only describes the your particular dogma's definition (omnipotent, infinite, long white beard, six arms,...) of the word then I can't argue (but why would an atheist do that)?  My guess is he simply wished to distance himself from all religious dogmatic descriptions of god, which may be quite a reasonable thing to do.


 * Anyhow, I think we should take him at his word whatever, precisely, he meant. Wwheaton (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

List
Someone keeps removing the partial list of works, replacing it with a link to the List article. The last attempt was an admin, who didn't bother to discuss the clearly contentious revert here. I agree the list here is too long, so needs to be shortened to give only the most important works, per the MOS. However, removing the entire list is against the MOS, as is leaving an ugly section containing only one see also. So editors here need to discuss how this list can be reduced.Yobmod (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's to discuss. You prefer a smaller partial bibliography but agree the current list is too long. Well...that is easily fixed. Make a smaller one instead of reverting it back to the complete list. Garion96 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has enough reverting already, making a smaller list needs discussion. There is no "complete" list in this article - this partial list has been here a long time, therefore has consensus. My decision about which are his most important works would be Original research - there needs to be a set of criteria for inclusion Eg, only his award winners (which means 2001 is out), or award nominees and books made into mainstream films? As we have 2 editors for it, i'll cut it down some.Yobmod (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I left any books that won awards, and those nominated for major awards (Hugo / Nebula), and those that made "All-time best" lists. this has the advantage of removing all the sequels and crappy collaborations, and keeping the classics.Yobmod (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1999 Nobel Prize nomination
In looking for a reference for the 1999 Nobel Prize for Literature nomination claim, I only found two that mention such a nomination:

I'm not sure if either of these is a reliable source, and I notice they were both written after the claim was added in this article, so it's possible they used Wikipedia as a source.

However, a similar IP to the one that added the claim (195.29.139.168 vs 195.29.133.218) mentioned above this nomination. That may be where the claim came from. It looks like it could be proof, but I'm hesitant to conclude that it is. Is that nomination an official by-invitation nomination, according to Nobel rules? Or is it just some random professor submitting an uninvited nomination? The writer doesn't mention being invited, and I'm not sure if he's a reliable source even if he did.

Anyway, that's my research. If anyone else wants to look for a good reference, I used Google, Google Scholar, and Google News pretty extensively, so you may want to try another route. Though Nobel Prize mentions that "The names of the nominees are never publicly announced, and neither are they told that they have been considered for the Prize. Nomination records are sealed for fifty years.", so it may be impossible to find a more reliable source than the above.

But references aside, I wonder if a Nobel Prize nomination is actually even noteworthy? our article says that the nomination invitations are sent to "three thousand selected individuals", and these people can nominate anyone they want. Essentially, a nomination is just the opinion of a "selected individual". Presumably they are an expert, so theoretically their opinion might be notable enough for Wikipedia. But we don't know who they are even, unless it's the aforementioned professor (even then, I couldn't find much on him other than a slew of forum and blog posts by him [Though Google Scholar turns up a couple maybe-good results]. This, for example, which leads me to suspect that the above IP on this talk page is him, and perhaps even the IP who added the claim to the article).

What do you guys think? Remove the claim as non-notable and/or unsourced, or keep it (hopefully adding some sort of reference)? -kotra (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. This is non-verifiable trivia. Novangelis (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove. If the nominations were truly verifiable, I would consider them notable, but I am in doubt they are.  To quote from our Wiki article, "The names of the nominees are never publicly announced, and neither are they told that they have been considered for the Prize. Nomination records are sealed for fifty years. In practice some nominees do become known. It is also common for publicists to make such a claim, founded or not."  Of course authentic nominations must often slip out into the public domain, but evaluating their reliability sounds problematic.  Unless there is truly convincing evidence from a reliable source, I would regard such claims as dubious at best.  Wwheaton (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, i just removed the literature prize claim from the lead, as both cites 6 and 7 do not mention it. Then i came here to make a section to discuss it.
 * I would go with remove both from the lead anyway - a nomination for nobel prize means only one person wrote a letter, it is not notable imo. The cited one for peace could stay in the main text, it has been mentioned in reliable sources, but even there it should say who nominated him. Yobmod (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing it. As for the Peace Prize nomination, according to this, the nominator was "National Space Society Director Glenn H. Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee". Interviewed here, NSS bio here. He seems notable, and an expert in some fields. Whether or not that qualifies him as an expert on this particular subject is arguable. I think we should only include the nomination if it's written by a notable expert on the subject being nominated for ("peace" in this case?), since we're essentially just giving an "expert opinion". This seems borderline to me, but I'm leaning towards removing it, as well. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I would keep the Peace nomination (not necessarily in the lead), since it seems reliable. The National Space Society is one of the two major space advocacy organizations in the US, so the nominator was notable.  You have to understand that all us space freaks are a little lunatic fringe (and therefore slightly suspect), but Clarke was preeminent among this group, and many of us do seriously believe that human expansion into space is at least as significant as the movement of life out of the sea onto the land, critical to the long-term survival and future of the human species, and quite possibly even the survival of life in the known universe.  Clarke's own notability is largely based on his advocacy of that agenda, and it is what gives his literature much of its power and its significance.   Based on this line of reasoning, the Peace Prize would be appropriate, in the opinion of a notable movement including a group of notable people.  Wwheaton (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Nobel comitte thought he was notable (and relevant) enough to ask for a nomination, i think that is sufficient. So at the moment, it looks like consensus for mentioning the peace nom in the main text, but not the lead? Anyone disagree?Yobmod (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not quite how it works. The Nobel Prize Committee asks 3,000 people to submit their nominations, but it doesn't have any say say on who they nominate. In any case, as for our consensus, we have two (you and Wwheaton) for keeping it (and maybe moving it out of the lead), and none for removing it (I'm basically neutral). I'd like to see more editors weigh in, but I suppose we have a shaky consensus. But where would we put it, if not in the lead? Arthur C. Clarke? It's already there (as well as the literature nomination, except I've just now removed that). -kotra (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every person who commentated said remove the literature prize. How is that not consensus? Mention in the main text seems fine in it's section, if its kept - it is an example ofrecognition.Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing the peace prize now. Certainly there is consensus to remove the literature prize. As for the peace prize, it would be nice to see more editors weigh in, but I think currently there is a shaky consensus to keep it. As for where to place it, you're saying it should be in the "Awards, honours and other recognition" section only, right? Just trying to clarify. -kotra (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Omission
The novel "2010: Odessey Two" has its own wikipedia page attributing it to Arthur C. Clarke. So, why isn't it listed in Clarke's list of novels? Are there other ommissions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.21.190 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a list of his major works. A more complete list is here. -- Rodhull andemu  20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Thank you. I knew he had written more, I just hadn't realized how much more.  BTW: I once, ages ago, edited an entry and today when I considered making a new edit I couldn't remember the name I used for the account. I took my best guess and wikipedia said it sent email. I didn't receive email at either my work or home email accounts so it was probably the wrong username and somebody else just got random email about their password changing. Oops. Is there a way to retrieve the original ID or, is it preferable to just create a new account? [apologies in advance if there is a better place/method to ask this question.]  Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.21.190 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can remember the name of any page you edited, then you can look in the page history and see the names there; that might jog your memory. Other than that, I know of no way and it might be best to just create a new username.  However, it occurs to me that if you did set up an email address which you still know, the database does contain that.  I wonder if someone with developer access might be able to figure out which userid goes with a specific email.  For privacy reasons they would not tell you, but they might be willing to send a email to that userid, which would be no different in effect from what you already tried.  You could try asking about this at the help desk.  Don't be too surprised if they suggest you just create a new userid, though. Mike Christie (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Excellent idea Mike. And it worked! Found one of my edits in the page history (it had been superceded by later edits), then I used the account name to get Wikipedia to reset the password. The ID was red - I assume that means the account was dead or dormant. I'll check my rmail and reactivate it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.21.190 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a red link for your user just means you never created a user page. Drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like any other help or advice; welcome to Wikipedia.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Inventor?
The article leads in by saying that Clarke "was a British science fiction author, inventor, and futurist,..." but nowhere in the article is there any mention of a single invention to his credit. Let's either remove that occupation or find and cite something that he invented. Lfalin (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He clearly has some claim to being the inventor of the geosynchronous communications satellite, which is well documented. One could claim he only "discovered" that use for those particular orbits, but I think "inventor" is appropriate, and widely accepted.  Wwheaton (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Clarkives"
I believe Sherwood's link deserved serious consideration before reversion. I can testify that he is a professsional journalist with many years' interest in and personal involvement with Clarke and his associates. Thus I think his store of information is rich and generally reliable. Checking our policy on external links, I see no grounds for summary reversion. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible unreliable source used on this page
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/aclarke.htm

The above website appears to not meet the requirements of being a reliable source since it is self published. There is a discussion [here]. There is also a discussion at the [plagiarism talk page] about how to handle this issue.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That site is only referenced for three things -- two pen names and his meeting his wife in Florida. It should be possible to find supplemental/alternative sources. At present, the same webpage is used twice. The two references could be combined, but I'm not going to act at this point, since it is possible that one or both may be removed. Thanks for the attention to detail. Novangelis (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTHING about him on "The Writer's Almanac"
I looked him up on "The Writer's Almanac", just to see if he was there, and he WASN'T!! Why, why, why? Bc1100 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought they had an Arthur C. Clarke award for best Sci-Fi???? But then I'm easily confused. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir?
The article has him as Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Would he officially have the prenomen "Sir" as third rank attendent and being one step below knighthood. If this is the case, I must have missed something because it states in the wiki-entry on CBE that it is the top two ranks(KBE and GBE) that would qualify him to use the prenomen sir. Can someone sort out my confusion??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.142 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As is explained in the article he was made a Knight Bachelor, this does not carry any postnominals, and is separate to any grade of the Order of the British Empire so he is indeed entitled to use "Sir" but also remains a Commander of the Order of the British Empire with the postnominals CBE. Had he instead been promoted to Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, he would also be a "Sir", but his postnominals would have changed to KBE.  David Underdown (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Views on Reincarnation
There have been a couple of removals of this quote on the grounds that it is only a small part of Clarke's interview. I encourage those people to select and include the other things in the page if they feel something is lacking, rather than removing things that aren't already in the article. This quote is eminently relevant to Clarke's views on religion. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply saying other quotes should be added is not a solution. Policy explicitly directs against quote farms. This quote has little value without an analysis which must come from a secondary source. This was extensively discussed at Talk:Ian Stevenson. The relevant policies of original research, coatracking and undue weight apply here equally. It is a simple fallacy to say that a quote belongs in one place if it does not belong in another. A quote can simply not belong.Novangelis (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an interesting description there N; "extensively discussed" - I think that is hardly a reasonable characterisation, besides you and me there were 8 other lines of contributions, and you only added 5 yourself. Hardly extensive.  Anyway, trivia aside, a quote from an interview is not exactly OR, is it, and the section here is entitled "Position on religion" - so it can also hardly be coatracking, and undue is not relevant either as Clarke's "World of Strange Powers" focuses entirely on paranormal phenomena.  As for your fallacy, I'll leave you and your straw man to comfort each other.
 * Now, on to more positive efforts, how about we create a new section on his Views on Paranormal Phenomena. Perhaps that will allay many of your concerns?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts speak for themselves. You are trying to find a home for the quote by creating a context. That is a mild form of coatracking (about as mild as it gets), but is coatracking, nonetheless. The article is about Arthur C. Clarke, not one quote of his.Novangelis (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So let's put in a section on his Views on Paranormal Phenomena, I agree that will be the best way to include this sort of material. Do you have other stuff to include at the moment, or will we just start with this?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Views on Paranormal

 * Since we are not required to fill out the article so that more time is spent on non-bias matters in order to keep bias content, I trimmed this per the guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, apologies LL, I didn't see your comment here. Unfortunately what you trimmed was Clarkes' views on the paranormal, which, given that's the name of the section, seems a tad unfortunate.  So I'll leave my reversion there so others can comment too if that's ok with you.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I myself have no problem with the current form of your addition. It seems to me some wikilawyering rather than discussion is going on here. Yworo (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Not being "required" to find material does not mean removing what is already there and cited. WP:Coatrack is a poor quality essay, not a guideline.YobMod 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, calling the quote Clarke's view on the paranormal is flagrant original research. The quote is on science and is not a discussion of the paranormal. In fact, from the same collection of essays, in the 17th essay, "Brain and Body", he points out he will not discuss the paranormal, the speculation being "profitless". Such quote mining proves the key topics in the Coatracking essay: straying off topic, no fringe theories, and fact picking. My apology for the long delay, but I had some reading to do to be sure to get things right.Novangelis (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Novangelis! I have no objection to renaming the section to something you have less trouble with, although I don't see any real problem with it as it stands.  Perhaps 'Clarke's skepticism' or something similar might render the science comment more relevant.  What do you think?  It's perhaps worth pointing out that whilst he may have written that he will not discuss the paranormal, we have a RS where he does exactly that, but I don't know that it would be terribly profitable to include this contradiction in the page - and is most likely OR unless you've got something that draws the comparison?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my job to rename the section. You created the section in order to find a home for the quote one quote, then added another which had nothing to do with the paranormal. That is original research. The onus was on you and you failed, dismally. I have no interest in cleaning up your messes when you proceed against advice. Your selective reading is problematic. Although I should have written a better transition, you obviously did not look at the reference before claiming your change was more up to date. You are trying to isolate one paragraph and interpret it without the context of the preceding paragraphs of the answer or the question. That is more original research in the form of quote mining and you need to cut it out, immediately.Novangelis (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall endeavour to ignore your hostility and provide a civil response. The bits you added had some good elements, in my view, but also some weaker ones.  Clarke was not referring to 'reincarnation' per se, and certainly not only Sri Lankan reincarnation, he was referring explicitly to the work that Ian Stevenson has done on reincarnation - which was only partially done in Sri Lanka.  He also explicitly mentions mental powers - something you seem to have given you're penchant for mind reading :-)  If you don't have a better section heading in mind, then I shall assume tacit acceptance of the one that is already there.  If you have a source that contradicts the information I have provided, then by all means include it, or bring it here for further discussion if you like.  Otherwise I will restore the material you have removed and await your justification - preferably with specific details rather than sweeping generalisations.  Oh, I stand corrected on the date for that interview, it seems it was 1999, and that Clarke (for some reason) said in it "it's already 2004", hence my confusion.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! I just figured it out.  It was 1999, he was making the point that Jesus is thought to have been born in 5 BCE, hence in 1999 it was already 2004 by the Christian calendar.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, selective reading. You have a penchant for noticing your reading errors after you have edited. I would call your edits pointless, but your inappropriate use of out-of-context quotes has a definite point of view. Your spin is definite. You include passages such as "examined skeptically before they're accepted" which, in the context of the original, could be read as "need examination" or "examine if you are going to accept". You changed the quote and spun it by setting it up with "needed to be" where the original said "But they've got to be...". You cannot use ambiguous quotes, and you absolutely cannot adjust them to taste. The extent to which you are giving weight to a paragraph that starts with "An example..." is providing undue weight. Your abuse of quotations and your original research are completely unacceptable.
 * As for your describing my complaints as sweeping generalizations, I'm sorry that I can sweepingly generalize that "Profiles of the Future" is not about the paranormal. My complaints have been quite specific. You are repeatedly introducing original research by quote mining.Novangelis (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your agitated state Novangelis. You appear to think that I am trying to make some sort of special point or 'spin'.  I assure you this is not the case.  If you have better wording that retains the salient information, let's have it!  I think you're jumping at shadows and perhaps struggling with AGF.  For my part I'm still struggling to understand some of your complaints, hence the request for specifics.  Your 'Profiles of the Future' bit is lost on me I'm afraid, any clarification would be welcome.  I'll have a look at your changes, trying to keep in mind your concerns about wording, and see if we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory version.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} OK, here is the section as you have rendered it and my comments;


 * Early in his career, Clarke had a fascination with the paranormal and stated that it was part of the inspiration for his novel Childhood's End. He also said that he was one of several who were fooled by a Uri Geller demonstration at Birkbeck College. Citing the numerous promising paranormal claims that were shown to be fraudulent, Clarke described his earlier openness to the paranormal having turned to being "an almost total skeptic" by the time of his 1992 biography.

So far so good, I have no objections to any of that - although I think it's important to include the Uri Geller citation. There are a couple of minor errors in the next bit which are easily fixed, so here is what I hope is an uncontested version of it;


 * Asked about the popularity of the 'mysterious' during a 1999 interview, he pointed out that the problem with hoaxes is that people want to believe them, even after the hoax had been exposed.

OK, now the next bit is where we disagree. You have;


 * Using the example of reincarnation, a popular local belief in Sri Lanka and for which there were some accounts that were hard to explain as otherwise, he pointed out that he could not exclude it completely, but saw major problems included a means of storing the information or means for extracting and reintegrating the data.

And I have;
 * Clarke remained open to the existence of genuine paranormal phenomena and did not rule out the possibility of mental powers. He insisted, however, that any such phenomena needed to be "examined skeptically before they're accepted". He cited reincarnation, and the work of Ian Stevenson in particular, as having "produced studies of about 50 cases that are hard to explain", but noted that one of the major challenges for reincarnation as an explanation included a means of storing the information or means for extracting and reintegrating the data.

Here's why I prefer my version. You are conflating his view on reincarnation with his comment about hoaxes. "Using the example of..." directly follows from the bit about exposed hoaxes. Clarke did not use reincarnation as an example of a hoax. In fact quite the contrary. He nominates (not unlike Sagan) mental powers and particular kinds of reincarnation research as being worth taking seriously. Unlike Sagan, Clarke is very specific and nominates the work of Ian Stevenson as containing 50 cases that are difficult to explain. Your version makes it sound like there are some local Sri Lankan accounts that are otherwise difficult to explain. Both the quantity (50) and the particular research (Ian Stevenson's) are specifically mentioned by Clarke, so you are unnecessarily, and unhelpfully removing details that I believe a reader would want to know. Now whether we do that with the quote or some other way is immaterial to me, so I welcome alternate wording, but I think that key information is important. I would also like to include details of the kinds of mental powers he thought worth further investigation, so if you have any details on that I think it would be a constructive addition. The rest we pretty much agree on unless I'm mistaken. I don't wish to edit war over this, so I'm happy to leave your version pending consensus. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I note your rehash N, but it still reads a lot like gibberish, and misses the key points - are you unwilling to discuss these? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It reads coherently and reflects the source. It does not need any of your imaginative interpretations.Novangelis (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... have you actually re-read it, or would you like me to fix it for you? Also do you care to comment on why you have included extraneous information (Sri Lanka) and left out the details a reader would likely wish to have i.e. what on earth was Clarke talking about?  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your fantastical extrapolation. It offers nothing of interest to anyone who wants to know about Clarke's views on the paranormal. It remains a wild speculation that runs contrary to the available facts, loaded with fringe-theory POV. Just to be clear, assume no silent assent. Beating a dead horse until no one replies is not permission to violate WP:NOR.Novangelis (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Novangelis, you seem to be over reacting. The section as you have left it contains a number of grammatical errors and is not clear - irrespective of the content issues.  I am happy to help, but as I said I would await input from others before editing that bit again I thought I would point it out to you.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's certainly an improvement, but you didn't catch them all. More importantly, you haven't come back to discuss the other issues.  i) Do you propose listing every country where reincarnation is a popular belief?  ii) Do you propose keeping the reader in the dark as to what Clarke actually said about reincarnation?  iii) Do you propose keeping the reader in the dark about what Clarke actually said about mental powers?  iv) Do you propose keeping the reader in the dark about Clarke's pointed comments about the limiting effect of preconceived ideas within science?  Personally I think ii)-iv) are all eminently includable elements in a section on his views on paranormal phenomena.  I think i) is an irrelevance, along with the Sri Lankan observation currently there.  I would welcome your justified position on these.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His example [his term] was local — he said Sri Lanka and the article specifically states the interview took place in Sri Lanka. Clarke said of reincarnation what is there. His comment "don't rule out" is redundant with "an almost total skeptic". The mined quote about preconceived notions is rather long for original research on his views on the paranormal. It has no business in the section and he has other quotes on science which are better.Novangelis (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The geographical element of his example is trivial, I am wanting to include the substance instead. Why on earth would a reader care about the 'where' without know the 'who' or the 'what'?  An equivalent would be to say at the start of the section that he was once fooled in London rather than "he was one of several who were fooled by a Uri Geller demonstration at Birkbeck College".  I really don't understand your problem with including the Stevenson information.  Are you able to explain it to me more clearly?  You also didn't comment on the other items I listed, and the other grammatical/clarity issues persist.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevance of Sri Lanka is easy to establish. Rather than waste any more time on suppositions on the weight of elements on an aside to the main question, I've replaced the text using a direct answer to a direct question from a different interview.Novangelis (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Sorry if I'm sounding like a harpy here Novangelis, but you seem quite determined to be myopic. Why on earth bother putting in a line that states that Clarke doesn't believe in reincarnation without providing the context for why anyone would ever think he did? By your current approach we might just as well add that he doesn't believe in Antelope-faeries, Spittle-gimps, nor Novo-angels. How peculiar!! And still the mental powers go unmentioned, as too the limits of science stuff. I'm merely trying to get a sensible section here, and your efforts to avoid this central issues are starting to look a bit contorted I'm afraid. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The central issues are Arthur C. Clarke, verifiability, and avoiding original research. Problem solved. Novangelis (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Is that all you're concerned about?  Well then it should be ok for me to put back in the verifiable information.  Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that adding a link to Ian Stevenson and mentioning his book is unduly promotional, and was written in a rather unbalanced way. It also seemed undue to mention Stevenson when it was such a small part of Clarke's life and work. Verbal chat  09:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to correct my last edit summary, this reference does mention Stevenson at the end http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=clarke_19_2, but it is hardly glowing, is one single mention, and it doesn't mention the book that recent edits seem to highlight and promote. I think we should leave Stevenson, with a link to reincarnation research at most, and definitely leave the book out as unsupported by any reference. Verbal chat
 * Can you paste your preferred version here? I don't have a problem with leaving out the book. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't turn into a quote farm. I have introduced several new references where Clarke is discussing reincarnation directly (including a second where he mentions the universal belief of reincarnation in Sri Lanka — which was deemed trivial). Provide another reference that carries more weight than "once mentioned, while using reincarnation as an example, during discussion of a different topic". The context of a quote must be established prior to its use and it must be unambiguous. Novangelis (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a quote from another topic and appending it to direct discussions is original research, even if you put "non-OR material" in the edit summary. For his views on other paranormal phenomena, there are other quotes that weren't cherry picked and spun with prefacing. "I’m anti-mysticism. I’m very anti the sort of lamebrains who accept anything fanciful, nonsensical like pyramid power, astrology, which is utter rubbish, much UFOlogy, flying saucers." (20/20 interview quoted in Biography — ch. 26) I don't have to put my own analysis on things. I could use someone else's: "Despite an absolute, not to say militant rejection of organised religion (and, almost equally, of pseudoscience, such as spoon bending, UFOs and alien abductions)..." ("The Cosmic Godfather) Rather than quote mining, the goal is to find sources that unambiguously represent his views. The purpose is to condense volumes into a few sentences, not a few sentences into volumes. Novangelis (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this? Geostationary satellite
What is this: "In an interview given shortly before his death, Clarke was asked whether he thought communications satellites would become important;" I am not sure about the quote that follows, but if I recall correctly he tried the patent in 1945 but it was fiction; he tried the patent in the 1960's but it was public domain. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)