Talk:The Mote in God's Eye/Archive 1

Heinlein quote
User:Night Gyr questioned,
 * ' Robert A. Heinlein called the book "possibly the finest science fiction novel I have ever read"'

That quote is on the cover of my copy. —wwoods 23:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's on the front cover of my copy as well, which I believe to be the original hardcover edition, and also has an extended version of the quote on the inside liner notes. Can the cover of the book itself be used as an indirect citation? I'd be more than happy to provide a cover scan, which I think would be nice to add to the article anyway. - Pacula 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully done correctly, I've uploaded a scan of the original edition's cover, made a note that this is the source of the quote, and removed the 'citation needed' tags. - Pacula 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1975 → 1974
Unless about 40-odd independent booksellers are wrong, the first edition of this novel was published in 1974, not 1975. I've edited the article to reflect this (including its categorization). Antepenultimate 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No "Spoilers End Here" Tag
I'm not entirely sure where to insert it, but maybe someone with more familiarity with the book can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihendley (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Award Nominations should also be mentioned in the Opening Line
This is pretty standard with articles. The award nominations are key descriptors for the primary subject.

Sean7phil 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edition differences?
Are there differences between the US and UK editions? For example in the museum section the article says that the keeper was introduced in the book- (s)he certainly wasn't in the UK version, except insofar as (s)he didn't want a battle to wreck the museum. The article also refers to two mediators being killed in the firefight- I don't think that's right, Whitbread's mediator was excuted later but the others survived.

Also there's something about Charlie asking for asylum- not in the UK edition there isn't, where one of the mediators summons a (human) guard to determine the correct word to represent a military blockade. --MarkMLl (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Mote In God's Eye - original hardcover edition.jpg
Image:The Mote In God's Eye - original hardcover edition.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that there -had- been a fair-use-rationale posted wit this. Even setting aside the issue about low res scans should be fair or not, there is another issue here - the front covour is the only source for the quite from Heinlein.... - Pacula (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blaine's Mediator
Infected by Blaine's optimism? I'll have to check, but I thought Blaine's mediator went insane because he couldn't comprehend the human chain-of-command. Schoop (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Aliens
The lead section now includes the statement "One interesting aspect of the novel — in comparison to other works of science fiction — is how the alien race's psychology is influenced by its physiology. Prior to this work, most aliens in science fiction would have a physiology radically different from human, but act and think in much the same way."

First of all, this is uncited critical analysis, and feels like OR. Secondly, while it might arguably be true for "most" SF prior to Mote (and after it too) it is not by any means true of all or even nearly all SF prior to Mote. Off the top of my head: the alien in Weinbaum's "A Martian Oddesey", The flying creatures in Anderson's "The Man Who Counts", the Yithrians in his The People of the Wind, The Diomedeans in several of Anderson's works, The hyperphotic aliens in George R. R. Martin's "Fast-friend", the Palianians in Smiths "Lensman" series, the alien in Kuttner's "Mimsey Were the Borogroves", the Gnomes in Kuttner's "A Gnome There Was", the Borribles, the title character of knight's VOR, the "jocks" and the "Little people" in RAH's Methusula's Children. One might also cite John W. Campbell's well-knmown dictum that a well written alien should be "something that thinks as well as a man, but not a like a man" to show that the concept had been present, at least as an ideal, long before Mote. 205.210.232.62 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Never before published
The article said "Portions of the book are available online for free (or the entirety, for pay) through Baen's WebScription service including the never-before published prologue." The section of the prologue entitled "Motelight" was published in one of Niven's collections, i think in N-Space. Another outtake from the early part of the book was published as "Reflex" in There Will be War edited by Pournelle. So "never-before published" was incorrect, and i have reworded it. 205.210.232.62 (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moties
I think the Moties section should be split into a separate article, and the Gripping hand article be merged into it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The original text in which they appear is the appropriate article to contain the info. What does need to happen (per an AfD, I believe) is a substantial trimming of all the motie physiology trivia and summary. --EEMIV (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Splitting would be rather pointless; it is hard to imagine why a reader would look up Moties, but not want to know about the book, and even arder to imagine someone looking up the book, but not wanting to know about Moties. Additionally, there would, perforce, be massive amounts of overlap between the two articles, just the sort of situation that receives calls for a merge. B00P (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Way too much description, not enough info on critical reaction
Prune the fancruft and add some reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.145.33 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article uses "words" that do not exist.
'Humankind' is not a word. Should be replaced with 'mankind' or 'humanity,' which are both actual English words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.12.220 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster seems to think otherwise - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humankind Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.239.237 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)