Talk:Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)

Start
I did the best I could. I put in what I remembered from Starship Troopers. At least I gave you guys something to work on and try to put in what you can.


 * No problem with your motives, but discussion of the government in Starship Troopers is much better covered in that article. In any case, the movie is a radical reinterpretation of the book.  --Robert Merkel 00:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, but maybe we should have more info on the military on the Starship Troopers page.


 * This article mentions a separate army and marine corps - I can't find any reference to this in the book and it certainly implies there are none - specificly when discussing the size of the MI


 * Actually when Juan is talking about how many people there is in the MI, explaining that they all fight. He says the MI are different from the army, in that all MI staff e.g logistics, chefs etc go to the front-line. Thereby implying the 2 are separate. However the recruitment officer who welcomes Juan to the MI (and he specifically says MI) mentions it is part of the army. I would therefore say the Army and the MI share a similar relationship as that of the modern navy and its marine corps. Ryan4314 04:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the Article
Greetings, my most excellent friends. Sorry I forgot to log in before editing, But I can assure you it's me. Anyway, I saw the article here and decided it was time to expand it. So I picked up a copy of the book and re-read it. And from the text of the book and conjecture, I used that to write this article.

Ian Fressange

VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Votes for deletion/Terran Federation -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep- Outcome of vote was to keep, long live the Federation.--68.81.105.166 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scotland
Hi guys, I love Starship Troopers. I added Scotland as the origin locality for the federation. Also I'd like to make some more edits at a later date, would like to discuss it with whoever else is showing an active editing phase in the article. Ryan4314 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neodogs as smart as "Morons" and June 2007 rewrite
I finished my proposed rewrite guys, please can we discuss it first if anyone thinks it needs reverting. Most obviously I thinned down the "Military" section, but my mindset when doing this was "make it understandable for people who haven't read the book" as people who have will already know this stuff.

You'll remember that Neodogs are referred to as being as smart as a human moron in the book, I didn't want to use a more politically correct, up to date term like Learning Disability as the two things are different. And I didn't want to put the word Moron in the article and then someone who undoubtedly knows very little about the context of the word will give a Knee-Jerk reaction, delete article, get FBI computer anti-terrorism on me, electric chair! So I went to the Moron (psychology) article and found out that the word was a scientific term when the book was written, meaning IQ of an 8-12 yr old kid. I tried explaining all this in the article, but it didn't sound very good so I just cut out the middle man. Ryan4314 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Zergilngs Vs. Marines
I think Terran Marines should have an electryfing shock when they touch a zergling trying to kill them. Better, init mush, instead of having a 3 tone shield!!!! Luigi Man.. 3 July 2007

Removal of the controversy section
Hi guys, I'm gonna trial "removal of the controversy section", don't worry I've merged all the info from it into the rest of the article. I felt this article should only be about the fictional government, not the controversy surrounding the book that can be found on the book's main page. I'm also considering moving all the stuff about federal service out of the government section and adding it to a new "Federal Service" section, then beefing up the government section. Let me know what y'all think, cheers Ryan4314 04:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

5000 years in the future
Twice recently an unregistered user has altered the 5000 in "approx 5000 years in the future" to 500, so here's the proof it's not 500. Not only does it say "approx 5000 years" mentioned in the blurb on the back (Hodder & Stoughton edition) but Juan Rico says in the book...

"We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very little change in our trade, at least since the five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry Uncle."

Well that was in the year 2333 – 2279 BC, which means the book is set in the year 3000 AD at least. Now I'll concede that I'd rather trust the book over the publishers blurb, However I left the article at 5000 years in the future untill I found more evidence that stated otherwise (Like why would the publishers get the number wrong?). In fact I only found that bit about Sargon the Great 2 days ago on a reread. I would much appreciate if others would contribute to this discussion please Ryan4314 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been changed to 500 hundred again, I'm assuming this is sock-puppetry. I'm gonna change it to a 1000 as stated above. But it's definitely not 500 yrs. Ryan4314 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to quibble, but the book text supports a date of approx. 2700 AD. And if the "five thousand" was a rounding up from "forty eight hundred" then that would be 2500 AD. (Or if it was a rounding down from "fifty three hundred" then it would be 3000 AD.) So 500 to 1000 years in the future is supportable - but certainly not 5,000 years in the future. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist activity?
Noticing a minor dispute about terrorist activity I suggested citing page numbers to resolve the dispute. Here is one reply: Well a page number is pretty useless as we probably have different editions, but mine page 98-99. Perhaps if I tell u it's shortly after chapter 8's beginning that might help?


 * (My copy is packed in one of the many boxes I will eventually unpack when I find the right space to put stuff in my new house. So I can't be very helpful in researching the facts.)

I don't want to be involved in the dispute. I just recommend that the participants present their evidence here. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another reply also moved from a user talk page here for broader discussion: "Take a look at this: Excerpt from the book"

I found myself mulling over a  discussion in our class in  History and Moral Philosophy. Mr. Dubois was talking about the disorders that preceded the breakup  of the  North  American  republic,  back in the  XXth century. According to him, there was a time just before they went down the drain when such crimes as Dillinger's were as common as dogfights. The Terror had not been just in North America -- Russia and  the British Isles had it, too, as    well as other  places. But it  reached its  peak  in  North America shortly before things went to pieces. "Law-abiding people,"  Dubois  had told us,  "hardly  dared  go into a    public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children,    armed with chains, knives,  homemade guns,  bludgeons .  .  . to  be hurt at    least, robbed most certainly, injured  for  life probably -- or even killed.    This went on for years, right up to the war between the Russo-Anglo-American    Alliance and the Chinese Hegemony. Murder, drug addiction, larceny, assault,    and vandalism were commonplace.

My only comment to this is that "The Terror" is probably not what we think of today as terrorism. So I think most of the paragraph in dispute has a reasonable basis but the word "terrorism" probably is not appropriate. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, no 1 was interested in helping me improve the article ten months ago (except vandals) or last week . But now when an obvious Troll comes along, making his first edit on his new account...


 * Well forget it, I don't enjoy these "disputes", especially not over an article that can never stand up to the full scrutiny of Wikipedia policy. Please don't message me about this subject again, I've removed the article from my watchlist. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll?? Dude, take it easy. I just pointed out the evidence according to which I edited the article, and apart from a slight inaccuracy in determining whether or not "Terror" refers to terrorism, there is nothing wrong with the information I added to article. Insulting people won't do you any good ... --UNSC Trooper (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Er have you read your entry on this talk page, statements like "I was stricken by the level of stupidity divulged in this talk page" count as personal attacks, hence the troll remark. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what I've written on that talk page is quite frankly none of your business. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah I see you have finally realised that Heinlein was not making predictions of the War on the Terror Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you're a moron. I didn't edit that. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Marines NOT Army
It has been mentioned that the Mobile Infantry are the Marines not the Army. Robert A. Heinlein said it himself. General Mannino (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the M.I is a branch that fits somewhere between the Marines and the Army. Although, the M.I was never referred to in the novel as "Marines", and we would assume it actually belongs to the Army. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it's mentioned numerous times in the book that the M.I. are part of the army i.e. Just after Juan enrols, the recruiting sergeant says to him "'A good choice'? Son, it's the only choice. The Mobile Infantry is the Army." Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhh yeah. That's what I said. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * the M.I is a branch that fits somewhere between the Marines and the Army. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It still means that they're Army, dude. It just so happens I was reading an invalid source when I made that statement. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should just read the book next time, if you'd done that it probably would've stopped you from making your earlier mistake regarding "Terrorist Activity". Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation → Terran Federation (Starship Troopers) — This is not obviously the primary meaning, move it to make way for a dab page. — 70.55.86.139 (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. Agree that the unqualified name should be a disambig... there are already three articles to disambiguate, and such an obvious name will doubtless have many more uses in various Sci Fi fictional universes. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of the Citizens Federation
I think it might be a good idea to make a "Citizens Federation" Section, since it does not have a article of it's own.

It could show how the Terran Federation from the novel, witch is patterned after the Roman republic, differs from the Citizen's Federation from the Movies, witch is patterned after a Fascist Dictatorship (Namely Nazi Germany). Henshin86 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)