Talk:Starship Troopers

Are you sure this isn't a satire?
Look all I've watched is the movies, but I was kinda surprised when I looked this up and found that the positions were supposedly legitimate interpretations of the author's views. Is this established anywhere? I don't understand it, it looks a lot like a Orwellian distopia caused by social conditions and an external threat much like the zerg from starcraft. I thought it was supposed to be a satire of fascism and militarism... am I wrong? Plaidman (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The book is a serious novel and can be read as a political treatise. The film, while is it actually good at keeping some of the themes of the book, is very much a satire of American militarism and society. The book isn't a dystopia, it's just a different world to the one we live in, a world where nothing is given and everything is earned. The book is a good read, I encourage you to read it. So in answer to your question, and in the interest of the article, the article is about the book which is definitely not satire, whereas the films are. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The initial title of the script for the movie was "Bughunt on Antares 5" or some such; the references to Heinlein's novel and the title were added ... who knows why? Some of the character's names are retained, and little else. The director supposedly read only the first chapter of the book, put it aside saying he didn't want to make a coming-of-age film, and ignored it. htom (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. You might consider adding something about this in the article about the book. I just checked the page for the movie and it has a blurb about it, if you wanted to draw sources and words from it. Personally having read the wikipedia page I do not think I would enjoy the book for ideological reasons. Thank you for responding promptly and thank you for your work on wikipedia. Plaidman (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Material about the movie belongs in the article on the movie, not the book. The ideas in the book are not affected in any way by the movie which had the book's name attached to it. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is "dystopian" about the book? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is consistently amazing to me how people utterly mischaracterize literally everything in the society RAH has described -- Note that this particularly includes Verhoeven. It's certainly not, in any regard, "Fascist". Anyone reading that claim need only look at the definition of "Fascist" and see how not a word of it applies to RAH's completely democratic society, which strongly promotes free speech and free assembly. It's also certainly not "Orwellian", as Plaidman has suggested. In fact, our current society is far more Orwellian than anything described in ST. WE have a huge amount of the machinery of a surveillance state, We have the media routinely changing "events" to match whatever viewpoint they -- and the government -- are looking to promote... We have suppression of contrarian opinions by many of our communication constructs, And strong evidence that at least some of it was driven by government edict. We have people of contrarian opinions being thrown in jail and socially ostracized by a mob, and they' have openly argued in multiple venues for actual incarceration for same. None of this kind of "Orwellianism" is ever suggested in any regard by RAH in ST. -- Not a whit of it.'' -- OBloodyHell (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie
There Should Be A Link To The Article About The Movie.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is already in the article. Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Fascism/militarism?

 * I'm surprised there is no mention of the fact that any soldier at any time can decide to leave the army without any questions asked. This is even true while the Bug War is raging. In which army has it ever been possible to leave during wartime without being accused of desertion and risking the death penalty? --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just re-watched the movie and re-read some parts of the book. An important aspect of both is the emphasis of Raszak (who in any real fascist society would be indoctrinating the youth with the ideas of The Leader) on independent thinking and making up your own mind. A teacher like that would not survive for a minute under a fascist regime. --Crusio (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I gotta say, don't really see the fascism. I mean, personal freedom and personal choice are espoused throughout, and the right to vote is extended to any willing to work for it. It's not like they limit voting along any arbitrary and unchangeable lines like race, ethnicity or religious background. And the Terran Federation is a society with few laws, low taxes, etc. That doesn't sound fascist to me, it sounds libertarian. SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Heinlein was an avowed libertarian, definitely not a fascist or militarist. --Crusio (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simplistic to describe Heinlein as a libertarian; his political views were more complex (and self-contradictory) than that. It is, however, absurd to describe him as a fascist. Whether the Terran Federation is a quasi-fascist state is again a more complex question; I'd call it more a junkerstaat (and that's not a compliment).-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way? The citizenry of the Terran Federation can hardly be compared to a group of hereditary landed nobles who obtained their positions of status through the war of colonization and conversion carried out by the Teutonic Knights. As I stated above, citizenry is based on civil service, not something as arbitrary as bloodlines, as would be the case in a so-called junkerstaat. If anything, the Terran Federation is a meritocracy. People are awarded greater rights and privileges once they do something to merit said privileges, such as placing their own needs aside to serve, or, as the US Air Force succinctly states it, after they put "Service before Self". Any comparison of the Terran Federation to a feudal system is, in my opinion, overly simplistic and clearly in error. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point; I referenced the junkers primarily because of the cult of the warrior which they inspired in late-19th-century Prussia, but it is still a weak analogy. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see much evidence that military service buys you greater rights and priviliges, except of course voting, which is of little value to the individual. A retired Lt Colonel (which seems to be a rather high rank in the TF) is teaching history in high school.  Of course we're not really informed whether he has to do that to put bread on the table. --Trovatore (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree though that any description of Heinlein as "libertarian" has to be qualified. Many of his writings resonate with libertarians.  But in To Sail Beyond the Sunset he speaks approvingly of hanging people for growing and selling marijuana.  In Revolt in 2100 (admittedly an early work) he espouses social credit.  I think we have to consider him a man of libertarian instincts, but not a promoter of a particular political theory.  For a writer, of course, this is a good thing -- ideological writers tend to be predictable and uninteresting. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not Revolt in 2100 I was thinking of. It's Beyond This Horizon.  Searches for "heinlein" and "social credit" mostly come up with For Us, the Living, which I've never actually read -- the socred stuff may be more explicit there.  But it's definitely there in Beyond as well. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, FWIW, BTH is actually one of his very first works published, if not THE first. He wrote it as a kind of response to (IIRC) The Shape of Things To Come aka Things To Come, which was considered an important picture in its time, much less so, today. And yes, this was particularly a time for RAH to massively change his position on things -- he was, clearly from both For Us, The Living and his own letters to people at the time, a strong believer in Marxism. He obviously came to not agree with it at all in a few short years, as it became clearer what the USSR and Marxism in general stood for.
 * Ummm... the ability to vote is the "greater rights and privileges" that come from military service. And to the contrary, what can be more important than having a say in how you are governed? I mean, wars have been fought and empires brought down over the right to vote. Saying the right to vote is of little value to the individual is like saying the right to own property or freedom of worship are of little value. The fact that there are two separate categories of people (citizen and civilian) is proof enough that military service (or any of the other services that garner you citizen status) is rewarded with greater rights and privileges. It's basically the foundation of the entire society of the Terran Federation, as Heinlein himself points out on numerous occasions. Also, in an aside, if the rank structure of the Terran Federation is anything like contemporary military ranks, Lt Col is not that high on the ladder. Lt Col is basically "middle management". Also, you make the assumption that teaching is a thankless and low paid job, when nothing of the kind is ever stated. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said it's of little value to the individual. If you personally couldn't vote, but everyone else who thinks like you and has the same interests as you still could, your life would be little different.  You will probably never in your life cast a vote that changes the result of an election, above perhaps the city-council level &mdash; in every election bigger than that, if you had voted the opposite way from how you actually voted, the outcome would have been exactly the same.
 * That's completely different from owning property or worshiping freely, both of which directly affect your life.
 * Now, of course veterans are likely to have interests in common, and in real life one would expect them to use the vote to promote those interests over those of non-veterans. But there's little evidence in the book that this happens.  That might be one of the most unrealistic aspects of the book. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Now, of course veterans are likely to have interests in common, and in real life one would expect them to use the vote to promote those interests over those of non-veterans." Except that is clearly one of the things taught ALL in the History and Moral Philosophy courses in High School. The point of the military service is to demonstrate a degree of social responsibility by putting your time and your very life in service to the state. So veterans are trained, both before, in HS, and later, as a part of the military, that they have a strong responsibility to make sure their votes are for their believed good of all, not for personal benefit. And, yeah, that is the very main issue with true Democracy, the more warm-body the more dangerous it is -- people voting for their own benefit instead of societal benefit.
 * Well, you do have to factor in that there are many fewer people voting, thus giving each vote cast more weight. This becomes even more important when you realize that veterans are in no way, shape, or form a cohesive voting bloc, as personal experience has demonstrated. I mean, Duncan Hunter and John Murtha are both veterans, try getting them to vote the same way on just about anything. Same with John Kerry and John McCain, or for that matter Al Gore and George W Bush. Saying that veterans are likely to vote for common interests assumes that there are interests common to all veterans. It's like expecting all truck drivers to vote the same way. It's, quite frankly, naive. And again, if the right to vote in no way affects your daily life, than how can you explain the American Revolutionary War, or the Women's suffrage movements worldwide, or any of the other wars, revolutions, and social movements formed with the sole goal of obtaining the right to vote? Much ado about nothing? SpudHawg948 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you wilfully misunderstanding me? None of the things in your last sentence are about the value of the vote as an individual right.  As an individual right, it's almost worthless.  The existence of the vote affects your daily life -- but not because you vote.  Rather, it's because lots of other people, who think like you do (or who think differently), vote.
 * There are, of course, interests common to all veterans. The size of the pension, for example.  If the veterans of Starship Troopers extract a gold-plated pension from the sweat of non-veteran brows, the book makes no mention of it.  There is no indication that the testimony of a non-veteran can't be held against a veteran in court.  That sort of thing.  These would be genuine "greater rights and privileges" for veterans, and in a real-world setting where they had the vote and non-veterans didn't, you would probably expect to see them.  But they aren't there in the book. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "wilfully (sic) misunderstanding" you. Merely pointing out that the "existence" of the vote could not exist without the individual's right to vote! You point out that daily life is affected when "lots of other people, who think like you do (or who think differently), vote." And what are those people doing but exercising an individual right, which certainly must be of some importance to them, why else would they do it? For all your talk of "other people" voting, all those "other people" are doing is exercising their individual rights to vote! As for Veterans having common interests such as pensions, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the on-going debate over the proposed new pension system for the National Guard. And, of course, inferring the existence of something (like some common goal such as "gold-plated" pensions when the author states nothing of the sort) is speculation. All I have been doing is taking the work at face value, not inventing new points seemingly out of whole-cloth. And at the end of the day, the fact that one group has the vote and another doesn't is proof that the former has at least one greater right/privilege than the latter. That's all I've been trying to say, so perhaps it's you who have been willfully misunderstanding me? SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The vote can certainly exist without you having the right to vote. It's important to you that the groups with which you identify not be excluded from the franchise; if your voting privilege specifically were gone, it would hurt only your pride.  So it's important as a group right, but not as an individual right.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But as I have been trying to say all along, it is a group right that cannot exist without the individual right! Honestly, this seems like it's become a "forest and the trees" argument, with you arguing that the trees do not matter on their own, as the forest would still exist, and me trying to point out (thus far in vain) that you cannot have a forest without all the individual trees! If anything, your argument sounds like something you could expect Juan Rico's father to say in an attempt to keep him from entering Federal service. The entire Terran Federation is predicated on the individual right to vote. Without an individual right to vote, there IS NO GROUP RIGHT!!! Regardless, my entire point originally was to answer your query about what greater rights service garnered by pointing out that the right to vote, held by one group but not another, is a greater right. SpudHawg948 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, that "understanding" is as prevalent as ever, a full decade later. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

May I point out that Heinlein's "utopia" has several similarities with both the Greek city-states and the early Roman Republic. Even in Athens, only male citizens could vote and hold office and only those that could serve in the ground or naval forces were citizens. To be a citizen was to be a Soldier (or a sailor). Socrates was proudest of his service as a hoplite. The wealthy bought horses and armor and weapons and served as cavalry, the well-to-do bought armor and weapons and served as hoplites in the front ranks of the phalanx. That level of service brought them more political power than the guy carrying a sling and operating as a skirmisher or missile troop on a galley (or a rower throwing javelins, rowers on Greek and Roman naval vessels being free men and expected to fight). We go to the Romans, and the same system is in place. Until the manipular legion when the oldest (and best equipped) Soldiers get switched to the back, but the best troops, men in their prime and still well equipped make up the centuries in the first line. Until after the well after the Carthaginian Wars, Roman citizens could not stand for office without having served ten years or ten campaigns in the legions. And both Athens and early Rome, as ancient "democracies" were renowned as aggressive and imperialistic states. Being a "democracy" does not automatically translate into being pacificsts. And a limited franchise based on service, whether military or not, is NOT fascist, either of the Italian/Spanish or the Nazi varieties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.113.149 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Version of article when passed as FA
Starship Troopers March 8, 2006 Might be a good idea to revisit the old article and revise the content to remove so much focus on "Controversy". Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? The Controversy section hasn't changed all that much, it has the same four subsections and is of approximately the same length as in that older version.  --Noren (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Controversy section is too long -- right now it's almost one third of the article (34420 characters by my count in the article, 10891 of those are in the controversy section, a rate 31.6%). I got it -- some folks don't like the book.  It seems hardly worth this much space to say that. Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The controversy is about Heinlein's treatment of matters important in the real world, which are fundamental to the book's premises, and which it was written specifically to address - he was doing more than just writing a piece of entertaining fiction. That the controversy is considerable, which the size of the section merely reflects, demonstrates his success in creating arguments of intellectual weight about important considerations, whether or not one agrees with his own conclusions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree too. The book maunders in and out of political discourse interminably. It is an Anne Rand style political commentary, and about as subtle with it as a kick in the nuts. He was writing it to make a political point. This got up a lot of people's noses and it is almost impossible to talk about the book without the politics, hence controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.249.132 (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


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

I'm not sure where to find good sources for information about Heinlein's purposes for the political aspects of Starship Troopers. To me, it seems obvious that he meant to write a counterpoint to two ideas that had become commonplace in the US at the time of his writing: First, the assumption that increasingly powerful and accurate missiles and bombs would make ground forces obsolete and lead to "clean wars" where enemy forces were destroyed from hundreds of miles away. Secondly, the idea that as societies became more affluent, they would owe more to their citizens (without requiring similar amounts of commitment from their citizens). Heinlein clearly believed that any society whose citizens demanded bread and circuses at the cost of those more wealthy than themselves would quickly fall apart. 75.146.134.161 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC) James MacKenzie


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

Banner WPMILHIST
There is a discussion on this book in particular, and on any military reading list books from military academies and training facilities in general at

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history

(the topic was started on 23 December 2009 - so if it not there, check the archives).

76.66.197.17 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the dead link to the IOBC (updated to Ft Benning at https://www.benning.army.mil/ibolc/welcome/ChiefofInfantryReadingListApr09.pdf) and ST is off the list. I'm removing the reference. CompRhetoric (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Navy, for example, Starship Troopers is on the recommended list for Junior Enlisted personnel. The above linked Ft. Benning list starts at an NCO rank and goes up, so it's entirely plausible that the book is still on a reading list intended for junior enlisted Army personnel. That being said, I couldn't find such an official list, so I agree that it should not be in the article at this time due to being unsourced.  Does anyone have a link or copy of a current Army list for junior enlisted persons? --Noren (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

Entry
Article is too long and needs complete revising. Link to: Johnnie Rico states he is a Filipina, the text suggests an Argentine or some other S.A.. All references to movies and games should be literary removed and most elements should be placed in present-tense as fiction.  Ncsr11
 * Rico does not state he is a Filipina; he does clearly state that he is a Filipino; and there is nothing whatsover in the book to suggest that this is false. There is no justification I can see for the removal of references to the existence of games, movies, etc. And we don't take kindly to people who insert links to copyright violations here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For a more detailed discussion of where this is mentioned in the book, see this archived talk page discussion.--Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations of fascism"
This section is of long standing, is well-footnoted, and is well-balanced. There is no justification that I have ever seen presented for its persistent removal. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. While I personally think the allegations are generally made by people who haven't actually read and understood the book, they are indeed common enough accusations. Plus it is referenced and has been in the article for a long time. In fact the section, with some alterations, appeared in the Featured Article version of the article back in 2006. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking back, I must agree, too. The only excuse I can offer for my undoing the addition is that my memory incorrectly placed that section in the movie's article, not in the book's, but the allegations were around long before the movie was thought of (and may have been part of the director's misunderstanding of the book itself.) Sorry for participating in a revert squabble; the section should stay. htom (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about an Allegations of Allegedness section? An Allegations of Allegationalism section? Isn't Sulu enough Phillipinos in the Federation?

As needs to be done once in a while, I've chopped large amounts from this section that are OR defenses of the book without any sources. It would be good to get notable defenses of the book with cites and include them in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Politics
I am wondering what connection the quote "correct morals arise from knowing what man is—not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be." has with anti-communism. It is not clear who he is referring to and I see no specific mention, unlike the other quotes given in the same section (such as to do with Marx and the Labour ToV) to communist theory. I have removed it, maybe too boldly, until someone can explain it. It seems a bit like original research to me, because unlike the other quotes, it isnt obvious what he is trying to say in relation to communism. ValenShephard (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. There is no clear indication that Heinlein is talking about communism in this passage.  I really doubt Heinlein was inclined to describe communists as "do-gooders". --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your quick response. I wonder if anyone knows what he is actually referring to in that quote? It seems very diffuse though, so I guess it could be interpreted many ways. ValenShephard (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever it means, wikieditors shouldn't be quoting primary sources to advance interpretations of a text. We need to rely on notable commentators who have done so. Ashmoo (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also true. --Trovatore (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I just wanted to see some way of including what I removed, I dont like simply cutting an article. ValenShephard (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an understandable sentiment not to want to destroy the work of others, but unfortunately I don't think it's one that helps us build a quality encyclopedia. If we're sentimental about removing clutter we wind up with cluttered prose.  This is a particular danger in designed-by-committee type projects. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't particularly want it included, I removed it after all. What do you mean this is a danger in designed by committee type projects? ValenShephard (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just what I said. A lot of people contribute a little bit, and no single person is responsible for working it into a coherent narrative.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote was wrongly attributed, too; my memory is that it was Rico's memory of retired Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois, speaking in class, not Rico (who did agree with the quote.) I've got to re-read it. htom (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC) See my comment above about Heinlein's "utopia" and its links to the political and social structures of the Greek city-states and early Roman Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.113.149 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of racism
Of course "Starship troopers" is racist. Remember Untermensch, Yellow Monkey, Rats, Infidels, Nonpersons, Second-class citizens, Lives unworthy of life and other forms of Dehumanization. All more than enough to support war. Is Heinlein putting us in front of the mirror? Aldo L (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sort of discussion is off-topic here. Talk pages are for discussions of changes (or proposed changes) to the article, not discussions of the subject matter of the article per se. --Trovatore (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I am sorry. What I am trying to say is that this, the relationship between war and racism, was debated a hundred times before. The new debate here should be whether Heinlein himself was racist (something that I have never heard before) or just his opus. If the latter is the case, I think that it would constitute a non issue. War is war: it is racist, it is cruel, it is immoral, it is unholy, etc. I don't see any controversy here. If I am allowed to, I would like to introduce two options: we may consider the section "Allegations of racism" redundant, or we may look for more references that explain the inclusion of racist material into "Starship troopers". Aldo L (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find some reliable notable sources that have defended Starship Troopers in this way, please include it. Ashmoo (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Heinlein's "utopia" is a post-racial society; people are not judged by their sex or race, the only distinction is whether they are veterans or not. The reader doesn't get any hint to Rico's race until well into the book. It seems to me that the book was pretty subversive for having a non-white main character in 1959. Puddytang (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allegations? But will it develop in to actual criminal charges and arrests, though? What are the conseqences to the allegations? Ender's Game got banned from many 10th grade reading lists and it turns out that book was only about the author's hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina in much the same way as Something Wicked This Way Comes (novel) and The Martian Chronicles was about Waukegan, Illinois. Any good prosecuter knows if you really want something to stick, you've got to come up with something a lot better than mere allegations. We all need to be super-duper extra cautious of anything having to do with 'allegations of utopianism'. After all, the U.F.P.'s shipyards are based over Utopia Planitia. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am personally confused at the opening sentence to the 'Allegations of utopianism' portion of the article: "More recently, the book has been analyzed as a utopia (in the sense of a society that does not, and cannot, exist), and that while Heinlein's ideas sound plausible, they have never been put to the test and are, actually, impractical or utopian". HEL-LO, it's a fiction book, and isn't meant as a blueprint for the real world. I would think this author's psychological inability to discern between fiction and nonfiction is more of a concern. 209.105.181.84 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Actual Military Assignment
The author mentions at the begining of Chapter Three, that Rico is sent to basic at Camp Currie on the northern prairies of Alberta, Canada assigned to the Third Training Regiment, as a bivouced camp. Similarly, Alberta's primary infantry training grounds of the Canadian Army to that region is CFB Wainwright on the northern prairies in Denwood, Alberta. The primary infrantry to that region would be the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI) under the 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1CMBG) based at Lancaster Park, CFB Edmonton composed of two rifle companies (airborne and mountain), a fire support company, and a command and support company. Because Camp Currie is bivouced it could be intended as being anywhere a few miles north of Edmonton. When Canada mobilized for Korea and NATO its three traditional Regular Force regiments (The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and Royal 22e Régiment) expanded into three battalions of the "Mobile Strike Force". The author's intentions is that Rico's first outfit is "Willie's Wildcat's", Company K, Third Regiment, First Mobile Infantry Division, Federal Service. -August 29, 2011


 * Sounds like original research to me. You don't know Heinlein's intentions, and he may have just made things up. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase intentions is just a way of stating that it was written in the book.

The world in which Juan Rico lives is post-WW3, where the nation-states collapsed after years of war. That the training base is in western Canada is simply Heinlein picking a place where the terrain, weather, and environment reinforce the training in making successful completion as difficult as possible. Note that the OTHER training camp was in SIBERIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.113.149 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe Haldeman's The Forever War (1974)
In terms of military science fiction, despite the controversies regarding Robert A. Heinlein's, Starship Troopers (1958), at conventions for a number of years science fiction authors routinely cited Joe Haldeman's, The Forever War (1974) as the 'perfect' military science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.3.20 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joe is a combat veteran with the shrapnel to prove it (still sets off alarms when he goes through scanners), and wrote Forever War in part as an answer to Starship Troopers. But what is your point? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Positioning of Gifford essay
Why is the paragraph treating James Gifford's excellent essay, on Heinlein's claims about the "mostly civil service" nature of Federal Service versus the actual textual evidence, placed in the "Allegations of fascism" section? Whether most electors are military veterans is only weakly related to fascism in any sense of the word that I understand. Wouldn't it make more sense in the "Allegations of militarism" section? --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. But it does flow from the Allegations of fascism section, so I don't see offhand how to fix this. Do you (or anyone else) want to try? I also added David Dyer-Bennet's similar argument re the veteran franchise controversy. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Military history section error
In the section "Military history, traditions, and military science" the text implies that Sir Arthur Currie commanded the Canadian Corps during the second world war. In fact he held that post during the first world war. 128.115.27.10 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Brock 11/29/2011


 * Fixed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Starship Troopers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090514064954/http://www.salon.com:80/col/shoa/1997/11/13shoa.html to http://www.salon.com/col/shoa/1997/11/13shoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051028142830/http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/troopers_book_000610.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/troopers_book_000610.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204020629/http://www.latinoreview.com:80/news/a-new-invasion-starship-troopers-headed-for-a-remake-15525 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/a-new-invasion-starship-troopers-headed-for-a-remake-15525
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140315012841/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/109837989728062.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/109837989728062.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140315013912/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116821080895539.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116821080895539.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence second paragraph
"The story is set in a future society ruled by a world government dominated by a military elite"

It doesn't matter where this is sourced from ... it's wrong.

Service is not military. Case in point ... Carl, one of the first characters introduced in the novel when stating what he hopes to do for his service:

"Me?" Carl answered. "I'm no truck driver. You know me Starside R & D, if they'll have me. Electronics"

Further a doctor carrying out an examination of the protagonist states

"But if you came in here in a wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe"

NOT military.

Yes ... due to the attack the need for military results in the vast majority of people going into military branches of Service. But prior to that attack a Fleet Sergeant says to Carl and Johnny

"But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right. It says that everybody, male or female, shall have his born right to pay his service and assume full citizenship but the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified K. P. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow. Got any idea what it takes to make a soldier?"

Furthermore, the military do not control the government. A person does not become a citizen until they complete their service.

"Go career? Quite aside from that noise about a commission, did I want to go career? Why, I had gone through all this to get my franchise, hadn't I? and if I went career, I was just as far away from the privilege of voting as if I had never enrolled because as long as you were still in uniform you weren't entitled to vote. Which was the way it should be, of course"

I suggest someone who is comfortable editing remove the clearly incorrect statement that the Terran Federation is military dominated.

203.129.29.87 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments are based on your own analysis of the text, whereas our article needs to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Please see WP:YESPOV, and WP:NOR. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? What? And who chose these "reliable sources"? I've read the book over and over since I was 14 years old. I have studied history, military in particular, for almost fifty years. I'm a retired US Army LTC. How does that make me any less a "reliable source". And the fact is the comments are correct. The political system is dominated by veterans. Veterans may be formed in their personal opinions and character by their military service, but they are NOT the military. This is not like 1930s Japan where the ability to bring down governments by refusing to provide active duty flag officers to serve in the Cabinet, allowed the Army and the Navy to dominate civilian government. And introduce their ideas of militarizing Japanese society to be put into effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.113.149 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal experience is all well and good, but Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources for information. The guidelines for Reliable sources are clear and apply to all of us. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

1997?
In regards to the film, did everyone take this 1997 thing and run with it? 1997 is repeated multiple times through this article, but the movie was released in 1999...

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

Let's be real about it and remove the clogging
I've read Starship Troopers I've come here to edit The reason is coz it had nothing to do with the book "X says Starship Troopers racist" "Y says Starship Troopers sexist" "Z says it's nazi" This wasn't a description of the book It was a hit piece That was 90% of the article So I edited out the clog and left just enough so it's known that there are people who hate it There are people who have the creative minds to find it racist, sexist and nazi And that's no reason to make this article JUST folks who complain I edited out the clog out Threw in quotes from the book to let the reader make up his mind Edited more to remove the constant attempts at portraying Heinlein as a monster And published Now Obviously you disagree You think this article SHOULD be a hit piece So I'm following standard Wikipedia procedure and writing this to see if you YOU EDITORS Are willing to admit this article is biased And let me unbias it If you have any logical reason to object Say it Explain how 90% of the article being "X says Starship Troopers evil and dystopic" is unbiased and actually teaches the reader about the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUDAHR (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the article not on editors, that would constitute personal attacks.
 * As for the interpretations, we don't decide what the interpretations are. We only show what reliable sources and analysis shows about it. As Wikipedia editors we don't get to decide what the viewpoint on a book or other work is. However is it can be reliably sourced that a huge proportion of critics and respected sources say the book is intrepreted as X then we can put that in. Remember Wikipedia is about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Additionally, have you edited Wikipedia before, and under what username? Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I second what Canterbury Tail said above; additionally, I'd suggest you read through WP:DUE, which lays out what constitutes a neutral article on Wikipedia. Please also remember that this article has been through a featured article review process, where it was subject to heavy scrutiny to bring it into compliance with our policies. Large scale changes to it need to be made after a consensus for them has been reached here on the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

utopian, not dystopian
There is a dispute about this sentence:
 * The setting of the book has been described as dystopian, but it is presented by Heinlein as utopian; its leaders are shown as good and wise, and the population as free and prosperous.[6][20]

Citation [6] does not support "The setting of the book has been described as dystopian" - it supports it having been described as utopian. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [6], which refers to "the military-ruled utopia of Starship Troopers".
 * [20]
 * Yes, cite 6 supports "it is presented by Heinlein as utopian; its leaders are shown as good and wise, and the population as free and prosperous", but does not support "The setting of the book has been described as dystopian"; nor, so far as I can see, does anything else in the chapter. Assuming that Samuelson stands up any better, and I would like to see the actual phrase purported to support this, one source, out of the many, many reviews of this work, is a weak reed on which to suggest a consensus of sources. I would suggest that "has been described as dystopian, but it" should go.
 * In passing, my reading of the book has never suggested that the setting could be viewed as a dystopia, but I suppose that different things are dystopian to different people. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence in question is "particularly dystopian as this system may sound", which I read as him saying the setting sounds dystopian, but is presented as utopian. If that's insufficient basis, I'm willing to delete "described as dystopian". Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I assume that is Samuelson. I would not, personally, read it that as the book being "described as dystopian". They are noting that it may sound dystopian, which is a different thing. In short, I don't think that this supports "The setting of the book has been described as dystopian" either. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I think he's making a distinction between the setting and the book (if that makes any sense), but on reflection I think you're right that it's not strongly worded enough for that statement, so I've removed it. It's also not explicitly stated elsewhere; a lot of reviewers essentially comment that Heinlein's world isn't a pleasant one, but stop short of saying "dystopia". Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be my view. Heinlein's world may be more or less to an individual's taste, but I would consider it hyperbolic to describe it as dystopian. That's pure OR of course. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Filipino ancestry
I noticed that almost all references to the main character being Filipino has been slowly expunged throughout the years. This is in spite of the fact that the text is unambiguous that he is, in fact, Filipino. He literally states that his native language is Tagalog. If he had stated that his native language was Mandarin, Korean, or Japanese there would be no ambiguity that he was Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. People are seemingly unaware that Filipinos have Spanish last names and can't wrap their mind around the fact that the main character is Filipino. It is also quite troubling that most editors are incapable of understanding that Filipinos are capable of living in other countries; the fact that he lives in Argentina has no bearing on his ethnicity. Therefore, since there is no justification for why these references to the protagonist's ethnicity were removed, I will be restoring the references to his ethnicity.

I would also like to add that the statement "fans have disagreed over his ethnicity" is not encyclopedic; in fact, it sounds like original research, which is completely disallowed on Wikipedia. Whatever disagreements that may exist in online or forum communities is not relevant to the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE NOVEL.

The text:

I said, "There ought to be one named _Magsaysay_." Bennie said, "What?" "Ramon Magsaysay," I explained. "Great man, great soldier -- probably be chief of psychological warfare if he was alive today. "Didn't you study any history?" "Well," admitted Bennie, "I learned that Simo'n Bolivar built the Pyramids, licked the Armada, and made the first trip to the Moon." "You left out marrying Cleopatra," I said. "Oh, that. Yup. Well, I guess every country has its own version of history." "I'm sure of it." I added something to myself and Bennie said, "What did you say?" "Sorry, Bernardo. Just an old saying in my own language. I suppose you could translate it, more or less, as `Home is where the heart is.'" "But what language was it?" '''"Tagalog. My native language." "Don't they talk Standard English where you come from?"''' "Oh, certainly. For business and school and so forth. We just talk the old speech around home a little. Traditions, you know." "Yeah, I know. My folks chatter in Espan~ol the same way. But where do you--" The speaker started playing "Meadowland"; Bennie broke into a grin. "Got a date with a ship! Watch yourself, fellow! See you."

Koikefan (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you make the claim that he lives in Argentina? This has no basis in the text of the book. His mother died in Buenos Aires, but it is plainly stated that she was on a long trip at the time.  From chapter 10, "I thought that both my parents were dead — since Father would never send Mother on a trip that long by herself."  What constitutes a long trip is ambiguous, but it argues against them living in Argentina. Other than not being near Buenos Aires there's not a lot to specify their home location, but the name of the MacArthur Center would make perfect sense in the Philippines but would be odd in Argentina. --Noren (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the correction. I confused the film and the novel. But your correction provides stronger basis for my restorations, so thanks. Koikefan (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While yes I agree it’s been slowly removed, I would like to correct a misunderstanding. Just because someone has X as a native language doesn’t mean they’re ethnically of a particular group. The same way having a surname of a particular origin doesn’t mean they have a particular origin. I know someone who is Caucasian and who’s native language is Japanese. Similarly I know someone of Chinese descent whose birth name is David Smith. You cannot make the assumption simply because of someone’s name or native language they are ethnically from a particular racial group, that is very much WP:OR and outright presumption. So since it’s not stated what ethnicity he is, we cannot say what it is. You make the point that some editors cannot seem to grasp that people can live in other countries without applying the exact same logic that people can speak a particular language and not be part of a particular ethnic group. As a result since the boom doesn’t state his race or ethnicity we can’t make such assumptions. Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This just sounds like wilful blindness. He literally answers a question about "where you come from" with details about Tagalog. If you can't put two and two together from those statements then you're just being wilfully obtuse. At the very least we can state conclusively that he "comes from" the place where Tagalog is a native language, i.e. the Philippines. So yes perhaps there's a 1% chance he's not ethnically Filipino, even though he has the most conventionally Filipino name in existence, but what cannot be denied is that he is at the very least Filipino in nationality (since he answers a question about "where is he from" and states his native language is Tagalog. Along with all the other indicators like Macarthur, Magsaysay, his name, etc. Koikefan (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No that is an assumption and original research. Again I know people born in a country, live in that country, speak that countries language as first language, but that is not their nationality. It’s pretty common. And this is why we rely on reliable sources to tell us this, not editors interpretations and assumptions. We can only state what is clearly written, and what reliable sources say. Anything else is original research interpretation. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided a source from CNN, you have no basis for saying that's not reliable. Koikefan (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So in order to call the character a particular nationality you need the character to state in the novel "I am X nationality and a citizen of X nationality"? Sorry but that is absurd. The literal text already indicates that he says he "comes from" the Philippines. How else are you supposed to interpret that? Koikefan (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And that CNN source is not something that’s known for its reliable nature on analysis of literature. Many reliable sources over the years have pointed out that it’s not known exactly what Rico’s ethnicity or race is, so that CNN one is going against that which calls it’s interpretation into question. Plus you make massive OR interpretations regarding other characters based solely on their names.
 * As for how you interpret what is said in the book, I think that’s the problem. It’s not our place as editors of an encyclopedia to interpret it. We can only state what is clearly said and what reliable sources say. We can say he speaks Tagalog as the book states that. We cannot say outright he’s Filipino as the book doesn’t say that. We cannot make that assumption, we’re explicitly prohibited under the original research policy. And incidentally the text doesn’t say he comes from the Philippines. We don’t even know if the Philippines exists or any other countries in the setting. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are impugning the CNN source without any evidence or basis. If there are "many reliable sources" saying what you say, I'd like to see them.

It is not an interpretation. We are literally reading what is in the text. If I say I am from the most populous country in the world, it is not an interpretation to say that I am from China, even though I never explicitly said it. It's a logical inference. Since this discussion seems to be going nowhere, do you want to do an RFC? Thanks. Koikefan (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to have escalated quickly. I'm not sure why this seems to have rapidly become heated, but I did want to add that Rico at one point refers to Aguinaldo as a hero of his country, thus pointing toward him identifying himself as having the Philippines as a nationality.  Also, see this archived talk page discussion. --Noren (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologize if the language I have used has been aggressive or heated. In any case, as I said, I think the best way to resolve this is through an RFC. Koikefan (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it can be resolved through a better location of sources to be honest, which at the end of the day we would need anyway. Ultimately I don't disagree with you, I believe Rico is Filipino. However that's an interpretation that meets certain statements in the book, but unfortunately it's not made clear or explicit so we can't use it unless we have reliable sources for it. I personally don't think the CNN source is that reliable (though if others disagree I will obviously go with community consensus), they're not known for their literary review or the like. I'd imagine if Rico being Filipino is a common enough held belief then other more reliable sources would cover it, sources known for their literary analysis etc.
 * Ultimately this is why we try and leave nationality out of things, it gets complicated and heated. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see the references below. I think they are reliable secondary sources that support my contention. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this help? Secondary sources that state that the Johnny Rico character is Filipino.     Schazjmd   (talk)  15:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, this does help, thank you for taking the time and effort to gather and post these references. Since I doubt I can do any better, I will refer to these references in support of my position. Koikefan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm rather confused as to why this is a lengthy discussion. The article states, unequivocally, that Rico is of Filipino ancestry, as the sources state; see last paragraph of "setting". This text has been in the article since FAC. The comment about fans is a comment about the fans, and says nothing about Rico's ancestry. I appreciate the sources, but the fact is already sourced. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, this discussion has to do primarily with inserting ethnic/nationality/country of origin information in the opening paragraph, specifically this statement: "The first-person narrative follows Juan "Johnny" Rico through his military service in the Mobile Infantry." I would suggest either "...follows Filipino soldier Juan "Johnny" Rico" or "...follows Juan "Johnny" Rico, a soldier from the Philippines, through his..." I'd also point out that this isn't a new addition by me. Very, very old versions of this article had stated something similar in the opening paragraph; it's just that references to the protagonist being Filipino have slowly been deleted throughout the years. Finally, it is quite odd that the article has a Race and gender section and zero reference to the protagonist's own race in said section. Regarding the comment about the fans, IMO, that should have a reference, otherwise it sounds like original research. It seems to me that most academic and secondary sources are unambiguously of the position that the character is Filipino (see references above), whether ethnically or nationality-wise. The only disagreements seem to arise from "fan communities," which I suppose means Reddit and other online forums. IMO inserting a reference to these online communities, without a secondary source, would amount to OR. Koikefan (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment about the fans has a reference, at the end of the segment, as is usual. Rico's ancestry isn't given more importance than it currently has because, relative to the number of sources that examine race in the story, and to those that examine other themes, very few even mention Rico's ethnicity, and none analyze it in any depth. The additions you propose therefore constitute undue weight. The proposed lead, furthermore, isn't consistent with the sources, which only refer to his ancestry, and don't directly state that he is a Filipino himself, ie someone who is native to or a citizen of the Philippines (which is the commonly used meaning of the term). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement about fans has three references, only one of which I can access and which does not refer to any "fan disagreement." But I'll leave that aside on the chance that the two sources do, in fact, reference "disagreements on race amongst fans." Regarding your other points, Filipino can refer to either ethnicity or nationality, since it is both (how else would you refer to a citizen of the Philippines?). Referring to the actual text once more, it indicates that he is "from" there, and his native language is Tagalog; that clearly indicates nationality or country of origin. This is in addition to the earlier point about Aguinaldo being a hero from his country. Koikefan (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but analyzing the text is original research, and is beyond our purview. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Reading the text is not original research. Your position is that his ancestry is Filipino but his citizenship or nationality is up in the air. That is remarkable, since the text offers more support for nationality than it does ethnicity (also implying that you were unaware that Filipino is used as a demonym). The text clearly states his native language is Filipino. It also clearly indicates that he is from where Tagalog is a native language. I don't think that's original research as you're literally just reading the text and taking from what it says. There's no analysis involved unless you think reading what a text says is original research or analysis. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about what the secondary sources state, which is that, again, the character is Filipino. That is not OR: "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." So since there's no disagreement that he is Filipino, based on secondary sources, what else is there left to disagree about? Koikefan (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading the text isn't original research, but analyzing it is; and given that this topic is obviously the subject of controversy, we should be relying on what secondary sources say. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the basic issue, which is one of due weight; the overwhelming majority of sources do not address Rico's ethnicity, and as such calling attention to it in the lead is not appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, and the secondary sources state he is Filipino, which as I've pointed out is both an ethnicity and a demonym. You took the leap to assume they were all referring to his ethnicity. It's not giving undue weight because it's a basic fact. Most (all?) of the secondary sources also state that he is Filipino, which again militates against the finding that undue weight is being given to a "controversial" position. There is no controversy amongst the secondary or academic literature. I am sure most sources do not discuss or devote paragraphs to the fact that the book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, yet it is stated in the lead because it's basic information. The lead also mentions his service in the Mobile Infantry; is it your position that I can delete the mention of Mobile Infantry and demand at least a dozen secondary sources focused on discussing the Mobile Infantry before it can be put on the lead? I'd also like to point out that this is not "the basic issue," it is YOUR main issue. The main issue brought up by Canterbury Tail was that there were not enough secondary sources to back up that the protagonist is Filipino. That issue has been addressed. You have now joined the discussion to bring up a separate issue, which I am now also addressing. Koikefan (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most secondary sources absolutely do not mention his ethnicity; that is quite incorrect. I also disagree that a character's ethnicity is "basic information" when none of the sources characterize his ethnicity as being of any relevance. It would seem we're at an impasse, and since you're the one trying to change the long-standing version of the article, you would need to begin an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. My statement is not that most secondary sources state the protagonist is Filipino. That is clearly incorrect since many sources don't discuss ethnicity at all. My statement was made in a discussion about undue weight. I said "THE" secondary sources, referring to ones that have been mentioned before, i.e. for the secondary sources that do bring up nationality/ethnicity there is no controversy as they almost all agree he is Filipino. Therefore, there is no disagreement that the protagonist is Filipino. And, therefore, it is not giving undue weight to mention this because it is not a "controversial opinion." I disagree that none of the sources characterize his ethnicity of being any relevance. Finally, whether his being Filipino is mentioned in 10%, 50% or 70% of secondary sources is irrelevant. As stated before, the lead mentions the Mobile Infantry and the publisher. How many secondary sources discuss the Mobile Infantry or the publisher? That's not a question relevant to whether something should be included in the lead. I will start an RfC after Canterbury has weighed in. Koikefan (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, a considerable proportion of the sources about the book discuss the MI. And the publisher, too, though the publisher is standard information in a way that the protagonist's ethnicity is not. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A considerable proportion is vague, I could just as well argue that a considerable proportion of sources also discuss the protagonist's ethnicity/nationality. Again, you are presuming that all of these sources are referring to ethnicity and not nationality or place of origin. A character's nationality or place of origin is pretty standard information. Koikefan (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't; and I use "considerable proportion" because I'm not going to count sources, but having read very many sources about this topic, I know generally how many refer to each topic. The number of sources that cover the MI in detail is large; the number that mention it is enormous. The same is not true for ethnicity, and I'm confused as to how you think you can make that argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Chiming in in light of recent edits, c'mon. That there might be a handful of clueless (and, likely, racist) fans who question Rico's ancestry, having spent many years in fandom, I don't doubt.  It does not therefore follow that we are compelled to give this fringe POV a place in this article.  WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE give us strong guidance on such matters, and I have yet to hear any rationale as to why it is important to put this in.   Ravenswing      21:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Government service in the lead
, you're quite correct in stating sources don't say it's entirely military service, and I apologize for my earlier carelessness; but they do make it clear it's primarily military service, or is at least seen that way. See the Gifford source, for instance. I've reworded the lead a little, does it seem reasonable to you now? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The text of the novel makes it clear that you do not have the right to perform military service; you sign up for Federal service and state your preferences, then they put you where they need you, even if you asked for combat and hate paper shuffling. I don't recall any text saying that the majority of Federal service positions are military. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is characteristic of superficial discussions of the book that they misread/misremember the societal set-up, perhaps because it makes for an easier cliche dismissal of the book as militaristic/fascistic. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to this like a year late but military service got prioritized because well they're at War 149.75.5.194 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to this like a year late but military service got prioritized because well they're at War 149.75.5.194 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What the issue is with the current version
reverted my edit with an edit summary asking what was the issue with the current version.

I don't care to fight about this point; it's true that the intro doesn't say anything that isn't almost certainly true and probably backed by reliable sources. But I think it's a bit misleading all the same. If we begin the description of the drama by identifying Rico as "a young man of Filipino descent", the reader immediately and reasonably expects that description to have some bearing on the story. But it really doesn't. There is no reference to anyone treating Johnny in any way affected by his ethnicity, nor of him seeing anything according to his Filipino "lived experience" as the kids would say.

makes a good point in the edit summary for this edit that Johnny's ethnicity would have mattered in the 1950s, and I do expect that was part of Heinlein's motivation. But it's pretty damn subtle. Heinlein isn't subtle about the points he really wants you to get.

One minor point &mdash; if we're going to talk about Filipino descent (as opposed to, say, place of birth) then the link should be to Filipinos, not to Philippines.

Anyway, that's my piece. I won't fight about it. But I've explained what I think is "the issue with the current version". --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I disagree that readers would "immediately and reasonably expect" that simply because the Wikipedia article identifies the character's ethnicity, it therefore follows that said ethnicity has a material effect on the plot. While I agree that Heinlein wasn't generally subtle about the points he wanted readers to get, the casual nature of this is part of the point: that in the Terran Federation he envisioned, ethnicity is a matter-of-fact thing no one worries much over.  And perhaps we could take his point, and not worry much over this factoid's precise placement and wording ourselves.   Ravenswing      23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will always go with what reliable sources say, as we always should, but here's the issue I have with it. The book doesn't actually state that he's Filipino, it states his native language is Tagalog and makes some suggestions to some heroes of his country. However that doesn't imply race or even ethnicity. It's like saying someone born in China who's native language is Mandarin is clearly Chinese even if his parents are both French. I know many people who's native language and place of birth is at odds with what we would deem the nationality and ethnicity of that country as I'm sure we all do. You can't straight up infer someone's racial identity and ethnicity from the language they speak or the country they were born in. Rant over. As in all things, go with what reliable sources are saying and agreeing about it. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably confident that reliable sources can be found to state he was Filipino; the book doesn't directly say so, but it's clear enough that he's Filipino that I have little doubt that reviewers have mentioned it.
 * The question is, why do we have to mention it, as almost the first thing we tell readers about Johnny Rico, when it isn't important to the story? If he'd been of, say, Irish descent, would we have put that in the first sentence describing him?
 * The possible point Heinlein may have been making with the choice of Johnny's ethnic background is important and can be discussed, but it isn't really part of the plot. It's a "meta"-level point, which would fit very well in the "Themes" section, perhaps, but I don't think it fits so well in the very first sentence describing the action from the point of view of the protagonist. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is in fact ample support in the sources, including all three cited in the body of the article for the content describing Rico's background. Gifford says "Juan Rico is of Filipino heritage"; Franklin says "Juan (Johnnie) Rico, son of a wealthy Philippine businessman"; Magill says "...that because his "native" language is Tagalog, that he is from the Philippine islands". Vanamonde (Talk) 05:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine; I'm not disputing that. I still don't think it's of enough in-universe importance to mention the first time the article talks about the protagonist. --Trovatore (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify the "in-universe" point: Johnny's ancestry may be important for questions of the form "Why did Heinlein...?".  It doesn't seem to be especially important to any big questions of the form "Why did Johnny...?".  And I would think, the first time you introduce the story, you would be mainly wanting to inform the second sort of question.
 * The other two mentioned characteristics -- that he's young and male -- are important to "Why did Johnny...?"-style questions, so those should stay. --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that a topic must be relevant within the narrative in order to appear in the lead is so obviously absurd to me that I wonder if I'm missing the point. Sales figures, critical reception, book formats, impact on other works- most of the last half of the lead covers topics which have absolutely zero relevance within the narrative of the book. The actual policy for judging relevance to the topic has no arbitrary rule that the topic must be viewed only as the characters within the work would view it.
 * A quick review of the history of editing of the page and discussions on this talk page will show you that this subject comes up in reference to Rico over and over and over again. This one little factoid is one of the top three or four subjects discussed here.  It's likely true that this is largely due to confusion caused by the movie, but regardless of the reason a large proportion of readers have demonstrated that they find it quite noteworthy.  The burning hot lens of the attention paid by our readers to this topic, in and of itself, warrants its inclusion in the lead.  Besides, it's just one word. --Noren (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly I have not stated the point well enough, rather than you missing it. Let me give it another shot.
 * First of all, I never said it can't appear in the lead. My issue is with it being almost the first thing (besides his name and that he's young and male) that we're told about the protagonist.  My attempt still put it in the lead, and in fact in the same paragraph, just later.
 * The issue with introducing the protagonist as a "young man of Filipino descent" is that, at least in today's group-identity-focused culture, it makes him sound like someone whose ethnic background is part of the point. And it is, in a very secondary, "meta" way, but not in the sense that would be expected today for someone written as a "Filipino protagonist".  That's why I think this is misleading.  Conceivably it would not have been misleading in the 1950s, or perhaps would have been misleading in a different way, but it is today.
 * As for the discussions that occur on the talk page, I think that's a little bit of bikeshedding (or conceivably activism), and likely not reflective of the concerns of the general readership as opposed to persons who edit this article. If you look at the talk history on Georg Cantor, you'll find that a large proportion of it is devoted to whether or not he was Jewish, a point of minimal importance in understanding his life and work. --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I suspect a well-framed RFC would be quite helpful here. This is a detail that is obviously in the sources, but it is not something that is given tremendous importance; as such the degree of prominence given to it is a matter of judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Military-historical context
Heinlein was in the US Navy and so it seems obvious that the story was influenced by the recent history of that time – the war against Japan in the Pacific and the Korean War – and so the Mobile Infantry seem to be the US Marines in SF form. But the article says next to nothing about this. Looking around for sources, there's a brief comment in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, "The initial historical context of such sf was provided by the Korean War...". And there's a substantial analysis in Yellow Perils of Robert Heinlein"Heinlein’s 1959 novel Starship Troopers offers the Gook thinly disguised as an enemy alien species of “Bugs.” Although the Bugs have been read naïvely as extraterrestrial (Perkowitz 33-34), they are metaphors for East Asians against whom Americans fought in the Second World War in the Pacific and in the Korean War ... The parallels are simply too numerous to ignore. The Bug War erupted after the Bugs raid Earth and destroy Buenos Aires (151), just as the Second World War in the Pacific erupts after the Japanese raid Pearl Harbor in 1941. The Terran Federation battles the Bugs planet by planet just as the United States waged war against Japan island by island. ... This passage evokes shock about human wave attacks, infantry assaults sacrificing large numbers of soldiers to overwhelm defenses, by the Japanese Imperial Army in the Second World War and by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the Korean War. ... The Bugs also make extensive use of defensive tunnels (224), as did the Japanese military in the Battle of Okinawa (Ienaga 198-199). ..." So, the article should say more about these historical and military parallels?  for your consideration, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a substantial amount of material that discusses the cold war context for the novel, so it's not as absent as you assume. The parallels to communists are mentioned specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Starship Troopers is about a hot war not a cold war and Imperial Japan was not communist. So, for example, when the lead says "Starship Troopers ... draws parallels between the conflict between humans and the Bugs, and the Cold War." its emphasis on the Cold War to the exclusion of the actual hot war of WW2 seems misleading or undue. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Hickman piece, though it strikes me as pretty much nonsense, is at least well-written nonsense and I suppose does count as a source. I don't think this is a particularly common take, though, so I wouldn't go on at length about it.
 * The immediate impetus for the book was an initiative by what Heinlein referred to as "the soi-disant SANE", for unilateral nuclear disarmament, which he staunchly opposed. I personally struggle a little to find the connection between that and the themes of the book, but anyway that was what he was directly responding to, and that was clearly a Cold War issue and had little to do with Japan.  Certainly that wouldn't prevent him from criticizing any collectivist impulses he might have seen in Japanese culture at the same time, but the anti-communist explanation seems much better supported. --Trovatore (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Whether service must be military
(This is discussed a few sections above, but it's from more than a year ago and the issue is live now, so I think it deserves a fresh section.)

An IP editor recently recharacterized the requirements for citizenship in the TF from military to government service; reverted, pointing out, correctly, that we need to go by the sources and not by editor analysis.

However, I think a point is being missed here. Heinlein himself explicitly asserted (in a later non-fiction work) that the requirement was for civil service, not for military specifically (though you didn't have the right to choose &mdash; you took the oath, and they put you where they put you). It is true that an independent secondary source claimed that Heinlein was "flatly wrong" about this, and this may be the consensus of sources. I don't think that prevents us from at least reporting Heinlein's assertion, which is a reliable secondary source, albeit not independent. I can look up the exact reference if no one has it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this is what the preponderance of the sources say, and when I rewrote this article a few years ago I read a lot of the source material. Critically, I don't believe there are sources which assert the opposite (that the requirement was not primarily military. However, if we have a RS reporting Heinlein's words (we shouldn't be using Heinlein's own writing directly) I'm okay adding that to the body of the article, though not to the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on what you mean by "using Heinlein's own writing directly". Just quoting from the novel and saying that supports the point, no.  But using what Heinlein wrote about his novel, yes, we can use that directly. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't, unless a secondary source shows the significance of a given quote. The issue isn't reliability; Heinlein's writing is reliable for his own views; but due weight, because of his copious discussions of his own work, we're not in the business of deciding which material to include. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can well decide that, when he directly contradicted a point made in the text, we probably ought to at least mention his take. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and by the way, it is a secondary source.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's Heinlein's own writing, it would not usually be considered a secondary source on Wikipedia, unless he published a piece explicitly analyzing his own past writing. Even if that were the case, there is a due weight issue with using a source that isn't independent. If he wrote an entire essay analyzing this book, we cannot reasonably choose which fragments to include. However, this is all hypothetical at this point; we need to see the source before we decide if and how to use it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, first softcover edition.  He includes the original "Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry?" and then writes an afterword, from p. 396 to p. 402.  In it he is analyzing his own writing, not in the way a literary critic would perhaps, but it is definitely secondary to that primary source.
 * In this bit he very specifically denies that the service required is specifically military (though it might be; you don't get to choose), saying "Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today "former members of federal civil service." He asserts that this is explicitly stated in the text.
 * Now, James Gifford argues persuasively that it is not in fact stated in the text, and that Heinlein is misremembering here. Gifford may well be right.  You can read his essay here.
 * But I still think that when we have Heinlein on record, in a secondary source discussing the earlier work, contradicting what is written in Wikivoice, it is reasonable at least to interpose a note that Heinlein denied the claim. This is not picking and choosing; it's noting a relevant and verifiable counterpoint. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be okay adding a brief note attributed in-text to Heinlein, in the body of the article, but not in the lead per WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It should appear where the claim is first made in Wikivoice. --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then, it is your responsibility to get consensus for such a change. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The novel uses the term Federal Service, and makes it clear that even if you want a combat role that is not guarantied. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Gifford (by all accounts, an admirer of Heinlein) and several others are independent, reliable sources which make the argument that federal service is primarily military. As I've said above, you need equally weighty sources if you wish to present the opposite view in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Gifford does, however, specifically note that Heinlein says it is not. That point should be mentioned the first time the point is discussed.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The bias here is palpable
salon "states" things, writers defending Heinleins intent only "argue" their point. This is just one of many cases.

The general take aeay here is that communist and anarchist commentators definitely represented the general beliefs of a majority of American readers in 1959. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Blatant lies about militarism and fascism, leaving out key parts of ideology expressed because they don't fit that image.
This has been ongoing and enforced for over a decade apparently. How? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:4BA7:4BB4:301A:CF35 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you create two talk sections on the same topic?
 * The issue isn't whether the allegations of fascism are false, ludicrous or outright lies; the issue is whether you can debunk those claims using material that is a RS. It's all about verifiability using wikipedia's criteria. Do I like those criteria? No, but we (TINW) are still bound to abide by them. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Despite the controversy...
"despite the fifteen people worldwide we found who felt it was controversial...."

Seriously?!? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

== So, apparently starship troopers is about space, space is a frontier, books about the frontier are racist towards indigenous people so starship troopers is about taking land from indigenous peoples. ==

"Commentators have argued that Heinlein's portrayal of aliens, as well as being a reference to people in communist countries, invokes the trope of a return to the frontier. The concept of the frontier includes a social-Darwinist argument of constantly fighting for survival, even at the expense of indigenous people or, in the case of Starship Troopers, of aliens" 2604:3D09:D78:1000:FD50:C857:AC27:E41F (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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