Talk:Arthur C. Clarke

Clarification needed

In the line: "Clarke later complained that this had the effect of making the book into a novelisation, that Kubrick had manipulated circumstances to downplay his authorship." It is unclear to whom the last use of "his" refers. Was Kubrick downplaying his own authorship or Clarke's? --Navaburo 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that "his" refers to Clarke. --Gspinoza (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Writer infobox

I put in a Template:Infobox Writer at the beginning of the article. Feel free to add/correct info. Gaheris 01:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the Cingalese nationality, because Mr Clarke has double citizenship of UK and Sri Lanka. By the way, the meaning of the word is controversial: properly, nationality has to be reffered only to ethnic-cultural-language belonging, while citizenship has to be referred to the belonging to a territorial State. However, some peoples (and some dictionaries, too) consider to two words as having the same meaning and I think it was used in this way on this site. Only - I'm sorry - I fear to have had a mistake in digit and saved in a wrong way. I'll try to restore.

Bibliography -- Why Partial?

Any particular reason the bibliography doesn't include short stories. It would be a useful reference. Ichibani 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Is it really necessary to quote the entire text of Clarke's story for Wired Magazine? :-P 64.90.198.6 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Debut Work Incorrect?

 What would properly define a Debut Work, as shown on the Clarke entry?  As referenced in another article, Travel_by_Wire!_(short_story) is the debut story from Clarke.

Fireye - 163.252.113.29 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Islands in the Sky

I have a copy of this book at home, and it says first published 1954. I had a quick look on the internet, and some sources say 1952, some 1954. Anyone know which is correct?

First edition was 1952, John C. Winston Company, Philadelphia and Toronto. Source is Currey's biblio of first editions. Mike Christie (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I do recall reading it, published serially in parts in "Mechanix Illustrated" magazine. It must have been about or slightly before August 1953, when I was 11. It was my first encounter with Clarke. I do not remember if it was a pre-publication thing, before the book actually came out -- probably not -- though I recall waiting for the next issue to arrive in the library that carried it. Wwheaton (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CCCP and Sputnik

I seem to recall the CCCP presenting Mr. Clarke with a model of Sputnik and a commemorative plaque acknowledging his input. Can anyone back this up?

Asimov-Clarke treaty recent reverts

See this website, though that's not the best kind of reliable source; it should be sourced from a copy of "Report on Planet Three", though if I recall correctly only the dedication can be sourced there, not the background story. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it somewhere, perhaps in the Asimov autobio or somewhere else. I will look for it. In the meanwhile I think it can stay. It is unsourced, but it is true and not controversial. Garion96 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am the editor who originally put the fact tags to the "Asimov-Clarke Treaty" statement, and removed it in lieu of sourcing. We should always air on the side of caution and remove unsourced material until it can be sourced, although the sourcing is not the only issue with the statement. So folks don't think I am obfuscating anything, here is the claim:

• The Asimov-Clarke Treaty recognises Clarke as the second best science writer, and Isaac Asimov as the second best science fiction writer, in the world. The corollary is obvious.

The additional problems with the statement are that the second sentence is just POV, no way around that. The first sentence is just confusing. It doesn't say what the Asimov-Clarke treaty is, what the criteria are for its rankings of science fiction and science writers, or why it is important to mention it... Assuming we can find a good source for the first statement, something will need to be given to justify whwether or not it even warrants inclusion (i.e. the notability of the "treaty"). --Edward Morgan Blake 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. One possible place that it might be included is in a discussion of Clarke's popularity compared with other writers. Asimov and Clarke had a long-standing friendly rivalry, and this could be mentioned and the treaty cited in support. I recall another example is Asimov mentioning that Clarke is three years older; the context is one where it's clear Asimov is humorously reminding his readers of the rivalry between them. Anyway, "Report on Planet Three" is certainly a source; the regular editors here can figure out where and whether to include it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the second sentence can go with no problem. The actual 'treaty' I do think is notable enough in a trivial sort of way. Nice contradiction there right? :) And yes, we should always err on the side of caution. But unsourced material, besides material falling under WP:BLP, does not have to be removed immediately. You only waited three days for someone to add a source after you tagged it, that's too fast. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo, "[Unsourced information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." While the info was more irrelevant and non-notable than negative in nature (negative info being the focus of Jimbo's quote, elaborated at the BLP policy here: WP:BLP#Unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material), its always better to remove and discuss on talk. My apologies for not bringing it up here right away, which I should have done, but I still believe removal was appropriate. --Edward Morgan Blake 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All true within limits, but if you tag with {{fact}} you should leave more then three days before you remove the information. Usually you give it a week or two. Either way, I will find a source for it. Garion96 (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blake, I am missing why you are concerned here. You are appealing to Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and quoting him out of context to boot. There's nothing controversial or libelous about the Asimov-Clarke agreement. It's mentioned in more than one of Asimov's books, though that's a lot of books to look through and find it. I believe one of Asimov's book has an extended dedication ending with something like "In accordance with the aforementioned agreement, the world's second best science fiction writer dedicates this book to the world's second best science writer."  Randall Bart   Talk  15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for "property of alien civilization"?

His interest in the paranormal was influenced by Charles Fort and embraced the belief that humanity may be the property of an ancient alien civilization. Surprisingly for a writer who is often held up as an example of hard science fiction's obsession with technology, three of Clarke's novels have this as a theme[citation needed].

I'm not sure which novels are being referred to, but arguably all four novels in the Odyssey series have this theme? --Hugovdm 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Clark on Youtube

He recorded a message to fans just before he turned 90 (on the 16th of december) which was put on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXQ7rNgWwg - I think that should be mentioned in the main article (I could write it, but people always delete my additions) --IceHunter (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Using cite web template seemed to help. Wwheaton (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the link at the end of the Biography section. I agree it is worthwhile, though saddening to his friends. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Some of you might like to join in review and criticism of the above article, which has lately been almost completely rewritten and greatly expanded. It was in a rather sorry state (in my opinion), but editor Dreadstar and a few others have done a fine job improving it. There is still some controversy about various sourcing and WP:OR issues, so critical inputs and suggestions are especially welcome, especially suggestions about reliable references that should be cited. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article itself is temporarily locked due to the dispute, so we will be limited to discussion on the talk page for a bit, but that is probably what we need anyhow at this point. Wwheaton (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I think something should be said of Clarke's views on religion. In the books I've read he comes across as almost militantly against established religion. His mindset is agnostic and leaning towards atheism, but he seems convinced that all organized religion (though he smiles most favorably on Buddhism) should be abolished. At the same time, many of his novels imply his hope for a being greater than mankind (e.g. Childhood's End, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rama Revealed, etc.). I don't have any sources for his religious views, though, which is why I haven't written this into the article. 128.187.0.164 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Death

He died this morning. Today is March 18. Why does the date keep getting switched to the 19th?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.33.54 (talk • contribs) 22:34, March 18, 2008

Come on. Don't make unthoughtful comments here. Just think about it. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the question unthoughtful, just the user was a little confused. As stated below he died on the morning of the 19th, at 1:30am, in Sri Lankan local time. (As sourced from here) Tagert (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well its not difficult to work out that India is ahead of America not behind it. Your source confirms this. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say hi to everybody else undoing the seemingly endless stream of "typo corrections". Hi! 209.97.85.233 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Some Anonymous Editor.

He died in India which has a time zone which may have put his date of death after midnight on Wednesday the 19th. It is still unclear as to when he actually died. Autopilots (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic,but I heard from the BBC towards the of March 18, Greenwich Mean Time that he died in Sri Lanka. ACEOREVIVED (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if we have a source saying the morning that means the 19th, until then i suggets we leave the 19th until evidence otherwise appears as was announced on the 19th in Sri Lanka (UTC+5.30). Thanks, SqueakBox 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

mirror accusations?

The bit on paedophilia seems a bit overdone (i.e., undue weight.) It was one newspaper, no charges were ever filed, there's just no evidence at all. I think we should kill it. Any thoughts? Sdedeo (tips) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A strong support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it provisionally -- I'll edit now and direct people to talk. It just seems kind of extreme. Sdedeo (tips) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly reported by more than one newspaper. The statements themselves were not in question, it was whether they constituted an admission to committing acts which were then legal in Sri Lanka but not in the UK. It involved two national goverments, Interpol, and partly led to Sri Lanka changing its age of consent and to an internationally-publicized delay in Clarke's accepting a knighthood. It's mentioned in brief in several wire service obituaries. For us not to cover it seems shortsighted. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text:

In early 1998, Clarke was to be made a knight, with Prince Charles visiting Sri Lanka in order to make the investiture. Just before the ceremony, a British tabloid, The Sunday Mirror, claimed in a sensationalist story that Clarke was a paedophile, giving supposed quotations from Clarke about the harmlessness of his predilection for boys. Clarke released a statement saying that "the accusations are such nonsense that I have found it difficult to treat them with the contempt that they deserve." He also said, "I categorically state that The Sunday Mirror's article is grossly defamatory and contains statements which in themselves and by innuendo are quite false, grossly inaccurate and extremely harmful." He later asked that the investiture of his knighthood be delayed "in order to avoid embarrassment to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales during his visit to Sri Lanka." In answer to the newspaper's allegations, Clarke was investigated by Sri Lankan authorities, who eventually dismissed the accusations. The Sunday Mirror later printed a retraction and Clarke was made a Knight Bachelor on 26 May 2000, in a ceremony in Colombo.[14][15][16][17] A formal investigation undertaken by Sri Lankan police cleared Clarke in April 1998.[18]

Here's what that tells me: only one paper reported that "Clarke was a paedophile," and then later retracted it. It also tells me that the statements were "supposed" (i.e., it's not verifiable that he made them, i.e., that again the only source here is one newspaper.) Is this correct? Sdedeo (tips) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC reported the allegations like this: "His status as the grand old man of science fiction was threatened when, in 1998, allegations of child abuse, which he strenuously denied, caused the confirmation of a knighthood to be delayed.

Although cleared by an investigation, Sir Arthur's unconventional lifestyle continued to cause some raised eyebrows."

Again, many people felt his lifestyle was unusual regarding all the young children running around his home, no one can provide any physical information that abuse occurred. I think people should just leave it alone, since the man is dead anyway. --Overhere2000 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CBE/KBE

I understand he was made a CBE in 1989 and a KBE in 1998. If the article lists him as a Sir, why is his KBE not mentioned? Doesn't KBE supersede his CBE? --Gordon (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)