Talk:Battlefield Earth (novel)/Archive 1

Uncited, questionable information
The article states: individual Scientologists were reportedly also ordered to buy copies of the book and later that article re-states, According to Miller, Scientologists throughout the United States were instructed to go out and buy at least two or three copies each.[11] and the second instance of Scientologists being "ordered" or "instructed" is cited. However, the first instance of Scientologists being "ordered" is uncited. I frankly don't believe anyone could find, anywhere, an instance of any Scientology organization "ordering" any Scientologist, ever, to "buy a copy of a book". I believe that is utterly false information. Now I realize the article was created to convey a criticsm of Scientology, but nonetheless, it should be cited according to WP:CITE. Specifically a line stating that individual Scientologists were ordered to do something, then who was ordered, who did the ordering, was it in writing or by word of mouth, and any additional information should be placed into the article, citing such an order. Myself, I'm pretty sure that is another of the google group rumors. Terryeo 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a rather frivolous objection. Basically, you are calling a claim "uncited" even though you yourself are pointing to the citation that supports it just a few sentences away.  Or are you claiming that it's possible for "According to Miller, Scientologists throughout the United States were instructed to go out and buy at least two or three copies each" to be true, and "individual Scientologists were reportedly also ordered to buy copies of the book" to be false? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly you don't understand what I have said was unsourced. A military commander can order his troops.  A Schoolmarm can order her students.  A voluntary organization, (such as a group of religious people) however, can not be ordered about.  "ordered" is the word and the sentence it is in is uncited. Terryeo 04:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * instruct: verb (instructed, instructing). ETYMOLOGY: 15c: from Latin instruere, instructum to equip or train.
 * 1)a)to teach or train someone in a subject or skill;
 * b) (usually instruct someone in something) to give them information about or practical knowledge of it.
 * 2) to direct or order, eg someone to do something.
 * 3) law to give (a lawyer) the facts concerning a case.
 * 4) law to engage (a lawyer) to act in a case.
 * Yandman 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, a voluntary organization cannot be ordered about? Then I guess we'll have to revise the description of the Church of Scientology to make it clear that it is no way a "voluntary organization" -- if it was, then L. Ron Hubbard would never have issued so many Ethics Orders. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

individual Scientologists were reportedly ordered to buy copies of the book. Who reported they were ordered? Ordered by whom?How many were ordered? What reliable publication which we can verify Ordered individual Scientologists to buy copies of the book ? Do you see now how a statement appears which is uncited? The sentence is jarring because it goes against the freedoms espoused by the Church it its various declarations. As we all know, one's participation in religion is (at least in the western world) voluntary. Terryeo 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your objection hinges upon the idea that the word "ordered" can only be interpreted according to one particular narrow definition, which is not the case. Even if it were the case, which it is not, and even if the numerous "Ethics Orders" issued by LRH didn't make the idea that the Church of Scientology has never "ordered" anyone to do anything ludicrous, your idea that no one can be "ordered" to do anything in a "voluntary organization" is quaint and naive.  Can that "voluntary organization" exact substantial penalties for disobedience if you do not follow their instruction?  Then it is not an instruction, but an order.  If you are told to get your stats up or be assigned to the RPF, it's an order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My statement is, the line is not cited, there is no reference which says that was ever published by a reliable source. Whereas WP:V says information of that nature (or any information in an article) should come from a previously published, reliable source. Terryeo 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo's comments about a "voluntary organisation" are somewhat fanciful - the CoS may be voluntary but adherence to its rules and instructions certainly isn't. (The same would be true for just about any workplace.) Note Bent Corydon's cited statement in the article: "We were ordered to sell 1000 copies of Hubbard's recently released science-fiction book Battlefield Earth "before Thursday" or I would be kicked out as mission holder." This testifies to actual coercion being used. -- ChrisO 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing presently voluntary about the cofs is joining it. Even auditing and training now are "regged" for using very coercive tactics. It has become a rather fascist organization. --Fahrenheit451 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It just amazes me how very different critics of the Church of Scientology view organizational actions than the people who gain from the Church's actions, view the Church's actions. Terryeo 07:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I'm told that those who gain from the activities of the Cosa Nostra also have a different view of it from the rest of the world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall the Battlefield Earth campaign quite well. I would not use the word "ordered". "Instructed" or "cajoled" or "strongly urged" would be accurate as a description for the tactics that were used to sell that series. Int management made use of cofs public "opinion leaders" to push this campaign.I ignored that insane crap and those who promoted it. --Fahrenheit451 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the wording to "urged" per your suggestion. I think it's sufficiently loose to blur the distinction between a request and an order, as it covers both possibilities. -- ChrisO 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:The word "Psychlo" is revealed to have originally meant "mental patient" in the alien language. Well in my copy Psychlo is stated to mean "brain,' according to some old dictionaries. Another form of the word also means 'property of"

Also I dont think Soth is a "supporting" character, I dont know what else to refer to him as, but he only has a very very small part right at the end. And again "his mother who was a member of a resistance group, a so-called "church," the actaul line in the book is "I used to think it was because my mother was a member of an underground church group. They believed that sentient creatures had souls and they felt very strongly about it.", which if you see has no reference to "Resistance group". It was Kers "Adoptive Father" who was in a resistance group. I dont know if Scientology thinks that animals have souls, but that is what Soth is stating his Mother belived YOurs H&K

GA on Hold
This article is up for Good Article candidacy; I am putting it on hold for the moment. This is a pretty high-quality article which I think is close to GA status. In particular, I'm impressed by the total lack of spelling mistakes and the adherence to WP:MOS. Here are some things I'd like to see before finalizing it as a GA: Take care of these things and you're well on the way to GA status. --Masamage ♫ 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead section needs expansion per WP:LEAD. It needs to be a summary of the article and can be several paragraphs long.
 * The book cover needs a detailed Fair use rationale on its summary page. It should probably also be shrunk down to at most 70% of what it is now.
 * The plot summary is a little dramatic, and feels a little encyclopedia-inappropriate. Please give this a once-over to make it more explanatory than mood-catching.
 * Good use of citations for the most part; the only section that definitely lacks them is the 'Publishing history' bit, which shouldn't be too hard to take care of.
 * Use more wikilinks in the "Scientology-related themes" section to the scientology articles. This will give readers a chance to learn more, and will make that section much more credible. Any external sources relating to thematic elements would help as well, but the wikilinking will help. A good example of what I mean is the well-placed link to Space opera in Scientology doctrine.


 * One week later, most of these have not been addressed (good job with the Scientology section, though). Because some parts of the article seem to be kind of in flux, I'll fail it for now so that it can get a fresh perspective when renominated; I hope that happens soon, because a lot of nice work has been done. Just make sure to tackle those other bullet points, especially the image use. Good luck! --Masamage ♫ 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picked quotes
As suspected, the recently added quotes of praise turned out to be cited to promotional sales text or to bare blurbs on battlefieldearth.com. I've removed the most blatant quote -- you can hardly say that the description of a book given by a bookstore that's trying to get you to buy the book is a "critical review". As for the rest, doesn't this fall under the definition of "cherry-picking quotes", the cherry-picking done by the website? I mean, certainly if Robert Heinlein had said "A terrific story but totally ruined by Hubbard's awful style" the website is not going to tell us anything but the "a terrific story" part and therefore it is not going to tell us what Heinlein's actual opinion of the book was. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The practice of blurbing is more of a favor to other writers than a legitimate critical response. I'm tempted to delete all of the blurbing.  Anyone opposed?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that the opinions of his contemporaries are in fact legitimate critical commmentary. What Bob Heinlein thought about a Science fiction book is a lot more relevant than what the editors of the Economist think. I mean what the heck do the editors of the Economist know about Science Fiction? Why would they even comment at all? I say leave the blurbs. Slightlyright 06:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the Economist can't have a legitimate book review staff (that is, ahem, done by book reviewers not editors). By the way, all of the reviews in the section (other than Mitt Romney) are by contemporaries of Hubbard so pointing to Heinlein as having more credibility because he was a contemporary is a bit of a red herring.  Naturally, including the opinions of other writers can certainly be appropriate and brings forth multiple perspectives but blurbing is hardly a representation of one's opinion.
 * As a section titled critical response, there is the presentation of some positive reviews and some negative. The blurbs just don't fit.
 * Also, as Antaeus Feldspar pointed out, there's heavy use of ellipses in these quotes. I'd say that a promotional website is not a reliable source.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

False claim
It certainly wasn't the first science-fiction book on the NYT lists, paperback or hardcover, even in the year it was released. "This has been a high-flying summer for science fiction and fantasy. Seven novels of that literary genre enjoyed runs on our hard-cover and paperback best-seller lists." September 5, 1982 As well, the 8,000,000 sales figure is unsourced. AndroidCat 04:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that the editor who added that has also said he is president and publisher of Galaxy Press, which may cause problems with our policies on conflicts of interest. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange. There's no such incorporation as Galaxy Press. Is he saying that he's the president of Author Services Inc.? AndroidCat 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

208.37.56.182 block removals
Could the editor from 208.37.56.182 cease making mass block removals of text without discussion? Just because you're connecting from the Author Services Inc./Galaxy Press IP block, you don't have special rights and you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. AndroidCat 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie implication
Would it be encycolpaedic to mention that fans of the book also hated the film? The way it's stated seems to imply that the movie being so terrible means the book was as well. 66.57.225.50 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg
Image:Battlefield earth book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources citing and/or discussing Mitt Romney's favorite book, Battlefield Earth:
Here are some additional sources:



Listed here, they can be later worked into the article itself. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the series
Wasn't this the first of a series of ten books? This is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I remember reading this is as a teenager and getting through the first 3 or 4 of them before I decided it was getting repetitive.  howcheng  {chat} 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. Battlefield Earth is a stand-alone novel.  Hubbard wrote a 10-volume work that started with "The Invader's Plan."  Schoop (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, Mission Earth (novel). Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

wtf is up with the book and movie, why the parrallel universes that rarely crossed paths
the book and the movie are compleatly different, of coarse they had to down size it make it one movie, but the compleatly changed everything else. I saw the movie when it first came out, I didn't think it was that bad then I read the book and got totally pissed off, they should have made it in sections,like 5 or 6 movies, and for god sakes stick to the damn plot. Personally I don't think the director even read the plot. I'm glad that they went under. reason for this : well lets see, terl died in the book, all the mined gold on earth (ft. Knoxs) were cleaned out, crissy had a little sister patty, in the movie they didn't even mention the telaportation problems, or any of the other mine sites, the "visitor" wern't there, the scots weren't mentioned (disgraceful), and most of all, they put some little punk "Barry Pepper" in there to play The McTylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.106 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy
The article says he wrote the book in celebration of 50 years as a writer, but the picture of the book says it is in celebration of 20 years. I am not familiar with the subject, so I don't know which is true, but obviously it can't be both. Can someone who knows clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckannan90 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, but I believe the book cover says "Celebrating 20 years as a science fiction bestseller": so apparently the image depicts a copy reprinted twenty years after the first edition. Goochelaar  (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias
(Understand that I have no special sympathy for Hubbard, Scientology, or Hubbard's writing.)

There seems to be a misconception here that Wikipedia's policy of being neutral is equivalent to being "politically correct".

I removed WP:PEACOCK language, both pro and con from the into paragraph: "notorious commercial and critical disaster". Editor who wrote this, either you are unfamiliar with Wiki policy, or you are familiar with it, and you should be ashamed. Those supporting Hubbard are hardly better, "in celebration of 20 years as a writer"? Who are you kidding? He sat down in an chair and thought, "I've been writing for 20 years, I think I'll celebrate it"?

Folks, you attack Scientology, yet you allow sentences such as this in the article, "Due to word of mouth and Internet buzz, it quickly disappeared from theatre chains."

This is original research.

When you adopt the tactics of your enemy, you become them.

Finally, folks, give me a break. Compared to many sci-fi movies, compared to yer typical Dr. Who episode, the movie is very watchable. If you leave your politics at the door. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit
I've been doing some research and found some information that might balance out this article a bit.

Add this text: ” L. Ron Hubbard wrote the novel’s introduction on October 1980, and noted that Battlefield earth “may be the biggest SF novel ever in terms of length.” in the lead paragraph AND “Battlefield Earth often echoes Planet of the Apes, the film Franklin Schaffner made in 1968 fro Pierre Boulle’s novel, according to writer Robert Fullford" in the critical response section.

I retrieved the information from the following reference: Fulford, R. (2000, May 09). Battlefield earth: A true cult classic: Scientology founder L ron hubbard built empires in his pulp fiction, too. National Post, pp. B.1.FRO-B1 / FRONT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangepulp81 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battlefield Earth (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215161422/http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/news_pf/Floridian/Battlefield_of_dreams.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/News/051200/news_pf/Floridian/Battlefield_of_dreams.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4023865%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0%2C1%2C7255%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battlefield Earth (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905223139/http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0%2C1%2C7255%2C00.html to http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0%2C1%2C7255%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (novel) → Battlefield Earth – Currently, Battlefield Earth goes to a disambiguation page, but all of the articles are related to this film. This same information could easily be covered with hatnotes on this article. Leaving the other articles as they are but moving this to the primary topic makes more sense to me. Sock  ( tock talk)  16:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No one is looking up this title for the soundtrack, and a film adaptation is often basically DABCONCEPT to the material it is adapted from, unless it is doing no more than borrowing the name for a barely-related story. In this case, the connection is direct, and a hatnote will suffice to disambiguate the source material from its one adaptation. bd2412  T 01:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose surely the awful film is more well known? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * |Battlefield_Earth_(novel) it is leave well alone. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:NOPRIMARY due to neither the book or the film being sufficiently dominant in order to justify losing the clear distinction afforded by using disambiguation on both. I suspect if we had to choose one over the other, the film would likely be the choice. The DAB is good to discourage internal mislinking. -- Netoholic @ 12:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.