Talk:The House of the Scorpion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cakunde.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead trim
Hi there, I trimmed the lead of this article because the information fits better under more dedicated headings. Fernmother (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Information
If you are not sure of the information you are putting down, please check the source before continuing. A lot in information is wrong here. "Brainwashing", is NOT used in the book, rather, it is planting a computer chip in the victim's brain, turning him/her in a eejit, aka zombie, or crot. Maria did not tell Matt about El Patron's death; Matt knew the afternoon after El Patron was wheeled out. "I'm here to inform you we are no longer in need of your sevices", was what Mr. Alacran said. Matt immediatedly knew El Patron was dead. Astroview120mm 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

can someone tell me what year this book is set in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.176.123 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

IN A LONG TIME FROM NOW... LIKE A LONG TIME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.23.213 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

umm who the hell said the book is set 6 hundred years in the future!???!?!?! thats stupid it never says that nor is it plausible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.13.235 (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Maria is acually not a young member of the Alacran family. She is the youngest child of the Mendoza family, friends of the Alacrans. Otherwise, Steven and Emilia (the other Mendoza child) could not have gotten married. Even El Patron is not so cruel as to make Steven marry his cousin or vice versa--Jln Dlphk (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who put "matts wife" after the "Maria" section? And the "Eejit" section's first sentence REALLY needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.162.190 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In need of a serious rewrite.
This article is in really bad shape. I'm not the best writer, but I'll try to clean it up a bit. Can anyone help?

I've read the book, but it's been a while. The summary is in awful shape. 68.1.98.64 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I remember the article in December last year. It was pathetic. Not really excellent now either, could use some help. The image of the book looks like somebody took it with their digital camera, so we'd need a good image. Slartibartfast1992 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This still needs a rewrite bad I'm not a very good writer or I'd do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.193.61 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the rewrite. I'll try to fix whatever comes up when I find the time. This book's still fresh in my mind. --EverythingIsRelevant (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sequel
I've heard that there might be a sequel to this book. Is that true? I also think this because the book ends awfully.

The plot is too long. It should only state the main facts, and there is no spoiler warning.--Smartiegirl2131 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No opinions, this is Wikipedia, not a forum. I do hope there's a sequel but you don't see me posting it everywhere. Slartibartfast1992 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Awful?
I liked the ending, A sequel would be nice.

1) Is it too hard to answer without opening a new section? That's what sections are for! Proposal and consensus, or question and answer, goes in the same discussion section. Honestly, get an account, read a Wikipedia manual, do something to not look like perfect idiots. Put the freaking date on your messages! 2) No personal opinions or points of view in Wikipedia. This is discussion about the article about the book, not about the book and any possible sequels. 3) I also liked the ending and would like a sequel, but I don't make a new section on the discussion page saying so. Slartibartfast1992 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm making a sequel for a project. It's the project. I can send you the iMovie maybe... DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The ending was not awful. There will be a sequel. The author, Nancy Farmer, is working on it now. On her blog she said it was going to be a little while before it came out though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanlawson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, as Nancy Farmer has commented on her blog, she is now almost finished with the book and it is definitely a sequel to The House of the Scorpion. So, wouldn't it be prudent to have a small section dedicated to this fact, as many other books, films, etc. with confirmed sequels, have this sequel mentioned in the main article until the actual book come out and then receives it's own section or a longer section of the original book's page? I'd be more than willing to do this, just want to get a go ahead so I don't waste my time and have it summarily deleted. Cheers! 70.116.68.123 (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it mentioned anywhere other than her blog? It would be better if it had been reported in a secondary source and not just her blog. That said, have you got a link to the blog article, so other editors can verify it? Post the link, and I'll take a look. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Image
The image of the book is not really that good. It left a part of the book out, and has horrible resolution, so I'm guessing somebody took it with their digital camera. I'll try and see if I can take a good picture of it. Give me some time to do this, I'm really busy these days. Slartibartfast1992 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind then, Bewareofdog seems to have gotten an excellent quality picture. Slartibartfast1992 23:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:0689852231.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Image:0689852231.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Eejit?
Why does "Eejit" redirect here? 80.7.20.133 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is used as a term for a sort of zombified human in the book. Slartibartfast1992 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

well, "eejit" is also an offensive word that means a simple-minded, rigid person with limited talent, or who only knows how to do things a certain way. 76.102.94.69 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think you need to look at the Eejit section of this article... I didn't do it, but, you know, something just doesn't seem quite right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.188.72 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Vandalism cleaned up. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
The vandalism has been going on for a while... This must not be a very popular book among students. I don't see why though; it was probably the best book we read the whole year. Definitely beat The Old Man and the Sea. Anyway, I think semi-protection would be very useful for this page. Any opinions? Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection, either temporary or for indefinite time. Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it got rejected. I guess we'll just have to keep fighting those vandals until they get tired... Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or until an admin blocks one, sees the pattern and says enough of that, for at least a week. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The week's over now... let's see if they stop vandalizing. Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Movie
I added the section about the movie like 2 years ago and for some reason I decided to look at the article again.. Anyway, I noticed that the film section got removed. There are definitely websites that claim a movie is in pre-production. Their legitimacy, i really have no clue about... whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.200.253 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard this, too. I have no clue why it is not on IMDB, however.

Luna

20 Children?
luna is a girl name from mexico.but in this book say that a luna is a boy name.it say that a lost boy in charge of infirmary.........that lost boy name luna.....

Title is all lowercase
Look on the copyright page. It says-

The house of the scorpion.

Therefore, it's lowercase.

QED.

Luna&#39;&#39;keet&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and move it to the proper page.

It should be upper case. The lowercase is just graphic design. Moved back. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the copyright page. It's all lowercase! Lu  na  ke  et  13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, in fact, a stylistic guideline saying to use the regular standards (i.e. E. E. Cummings, not e. e. cummings) rather than the ones supplied, but I can't locate it now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it! WP:MOSCAPS. —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

spoilers!
put spoiler headers please!

this is a great book and it would be sad for people to have it wrecked for them --student in IASA, (tell IASA about it)


 * Unnecessary. If they're reading the plot summary, they know they're getting spoilers. See WP:SPOILER for why we don't need a redundant notice anywhere in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! anybody can edit this page so don't listen to it!! Gaston Soffritti(L)(L)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.52 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that there are editors who watch the page and clean up the vandalism, it's reliable as a general source. Don't leverage your English grade on it, though: Wikipedia is not Coles Notes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Nsaa used Rollback to revert my edit, when it wasn't vandalism. I see why he might have done that, but the fact remains that it's Opium in the book that's a wasteland borrowed from Mexico and the US. Aztlan is apparently the new name for Mexico in the book, and it's supposed to be an "OK" place. Sorry about that confusion. 98.111.95.78 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Young People's Literature award
The National Book Foundation "National Book Awards – 2002" is linked to both the acceptance speech by Farmer and the introduction by YPL award panel chair Han Nolan. Nolan's remarks include, "this year perhaps more than any other year obliterated any boundaries left between the young adult and adult novel." I have added that much to the reference for the award.

Some of Nolan's presentation expands on that remark; some pertains to this award-winning book rather than to the whole lot of 160 books that were nominated; some would be notable if pertinent here. (Her observation that Science Fiction and Fantasy nominees average 400 pages does pertain both to the winner and to the disappearing distinction between adult and young-adult novels but I don't consider it notable here. Otherwise I don't feel able to judge, as I haven't read the book.) --P64 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)