Talk:Arthur C. Clarke
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur C. Clarke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Bisexual[edit]
Is there any particular reason why this man is not listed in one or more LGBT categories? The man was a self-admitted bisexual and is listed as "bisexual" in many different publications. Google brings up a huge number of websites dealing with this matter, one of the first hits being http://www.nndb.com/people/725/000023656/#FN1. Anyway, there should be discussion about this, but regardless, I see no reason whatsoever why this man should not be listed as a LGBT person, and furthermore, I see no reason why the article should not delve into this matter further. This article has languished in the closet long enough. Laval (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- We're going to pretend he was straight, and thus his article won't be listed in any LGBT categories, just like with the Georgia O'Keeffe article. Remember that window of time when the Roddy McDowall article had a rainbow flag at the top of its talk section? Homophobia is alive and well on wikipedia. :) One reason among several why Jimmy can pander at me all he wants but he'll never get a fucking cent from this graduate gemologist and historian. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with you, especially your view on Jimmy ("Nice Work If You Can Get It"). But we are going to pretend that he only preferred men and not boys. 86.187.165.71 (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Do you wish to propose an addition to the article text and one or more sources to support it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- No. Let sleeping dogs lie, particularly in the (at present) holier-than-thou moral climate. Thanks for asking. 86.187.165.71 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- This thread was opened originally to discuss the issue of LGBT Categories. This seems to have been addressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Recent, validly sourced content about Clark's alleged pedophilia[edit]
Graham Johnson's book Hack substantiates the claims against Clark. One alleged police investigation in Sri Lanka does not equal exoneration. A court of law does. Mr. Clark never took the case to court which he could have easily done to officially exonerate himself. I have an Independent (the newspaper) article and a published book that substantiate the claims of Clark's pedophilia, and as such the information rightly deserves to be published in the article, more or less as written (that is, factually, giving both sides to the issue and not simply removing the issue). As such, this is not hearsay or rumor, this has not been previously discussed (which is not a valid reason to remove the content), and the source is completely valid; all reasons given for removing the content. In any event there should be no removal of validly sourced content without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.73.31 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unsubstantiated claims that didn't meet tabloid publication standards are not "views". The concept that tabloids are true if no one sued is ludicrous.Novangelis (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is only right that the facts as reported in this article are mentioned on wikipedia. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-spiked-paedophilia-scoop-on-arthur-c-clarke-for-fear-of-murdoch-7920816.html That being that a Mirror reporter has stated that Clarke did confess to him that he had sex with boys who had entered puberty. Such a claim made in a respected news paper cannot be ignored. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually it is hearsay. The Independent article merely mentions a claim in a book written by a former News Of The World reporter. It doesn't substantiate anything, and it coming from a former News Of The World reporter who was sacked makes it doubly dubious to say the least. The Wikipedia article as it stands mentions the allegation, and that it was retracted by the Sunday Mirror. Because Clarke chose not to sue the newspaper isn't relevant. If the Sri Lankan police found no evidence and did not prosecute over the matter, then there's no case. L@zloFeelot@lk 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia is not a court of law, and this pertains to historical facts, not legal facts.
- Regardless, it is not hearsay that Sri lankans held protests after the police declared him innocent. it's not hearsay that they conducted an investigation. it's not hearsay that the claims where made in the first place. It's not hearsay that Clarke issued statements on the matter. Not a single one of these facts are "hearsay." They are relevant facts that any competent encyclopeadia article would include. The deletion of this encyclopeadic content has absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia's rules. This entire discussion just looks like fans defending the record of someone they don't want to think poorly of. How is it even possible that the argument has gotten this far? These are historical facts. They belong in an encyclopeadia. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia is incapable of providing the same information about a famous authors life as a google search, it looks exactly like censorship. 203.26.125.101 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
How often are people going to try to add these claims to the article? I wasn't sure of his sexuality, but his reference in 2010 to Dr. Curnow insisting that he thought Max was over 18 definitely made me wonder. It also made me wonder if he had personal experience with underage boys. But that's all we have: wonder. Nothing verifiable or substantial. --73.52.128.59 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Where is the history? I realise I am late to the article, but I came to Wikipedia to get a handle on this issue before I bought an Arthur C Clarke book i.e. I do not want to provide financial support to the estate of a paedophile (that is personal information, that I am only including here for background). I suspect that there are many others who heard the 'stories' of paedophilia at the time and did not hear an end result (if any). If those people are anything like me, and turn to Wikipedia to find out about the allegations and their outcome they will find... absolutely nothing!.
That is crazy! People turn to Wikipedia to find out what happened when, and cannot. Most look no further than the main article, which contains nothing about paedophilia allegations or their outcome has a brief mention of the incident under the heading 'Knighthood' - not where one normally looks for such information (and something I only found in my third check of the article, while writing this comment). Anyone who was around in the period in which these allegations were made - and in particular any science fiction fans - will remember it very clearly. I have not bought an Arthur C. Clarke book since then, because I did not know the outcome!
Any suggestion that since the Sri Lankan authorities dismissed the case all is fine and dandy is - at the very least - naive given the other references in this article to his stature on the island and the reputation of its police (e.g. this Tamil Guardian article, reports from Transparency International). The BBC report (ref 49) states in part (I have removed paragraph breaks) 'The deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime. "He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia." Police interviewed three young men who had told the Sunday Mirror they had sex with Sir Arthur when they were teenagers'. It goes on 'Mr Nizam said all three had now withdrawn their allegations'. Again, this is from the Sri Lankan police force. I am not saying that the investigation was not thorough, but I am saying to simply rely on such statements - especially since the investigation was ongoing at that time - is negligent in the extreme.
Link 50 provides no useful additional information other than a statement that 'Sri Lanka asked Interpol in April to get the interview tape from the newspaper. A reminder was sent a month later. The Sri Lankan High Commission in London also attempted to get the tape from the Sunday Mirror'. Link 51 states that 'the newspaper published an apology' (has anyone actually seen this?), and link 52 is behind a paywall.
We have a serious allegation that was treated seriously by a range of media sources. A few other links that may add something: The Independent, The Independent in 2012, and a theory from LankaWeb news.
I suggest - without yet making any changes - that more needs to be said about this incident, and it needs to be said in the right place. Yes, it was an allegation. Yes, the local police said 'it's rubbish'. Yes, the newspaper involved allegedly apologised [citation needed]. More needs to be said in this article about what occurred:
- An accusation was made in a tabloid newspaper, that said x (the second linked article, 48, went into some detail and named names - including Jonathan Tampico, who turns up in a brief Google search as Jonathan Tampico - while this blog appears to contain more of the article than is at the other link, and indicates that Sacramento police had 'some information' about Clarke)
- (One must ask whether the reporter did in fact travel to Sri Lanka - if not, the entire story collapses but still needs to be mentioned!)
- Sri Lankan police were pressured by local Buddhist and other prominent organisations to conduct a full and proper investigation (somewhere in all of the links I have included in this comment)
- Sri Lankan police advised that they found no evidence (quotes are relevant)
- The tabloid allegedly apologised[citation needed].
This needs to be stated in the part of this article on his sexuality, which at the moment is a sub-sub-section but needs to be a subsection. And at the moment, I think all anyone can safely conclude is that the investigation ended, and no evidence has been made publicly available that indicates any guilt on the part of Sir Arthur. That is all history, not rubbishing the man's name, and is at the very least better than what is currently in the article - which appears to be attempting to bury the whole story. The current article is unfair to the man, as people like me who come looking for 'the truth' will not find it on Wikipedia (unless they look extremely closely), and many will simply conclude that there must be some truth in the story. Wikipedia is not here to judge, but to report - and this was a huge story in the late 90s. It deserves proper treatment.
Any dispute before the necessary changes are made, either by me or preferably someone with better Wikipedia skills? Ambiguosity (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You can gather from all the above that if you want the truth about Arthur's sexuality, Wikipedia is not the place to go looking for it. 86.187.165.71 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Residence while working in London[edit]
Does anyone know where he lived while working in London in the late '40s/early '50s? I think I recall my father, who worked in the Wood Green public library, talking about him being a regular borrower there, and if he lived there, he should be listed as a notable resident of the (then) borough (it could do with a few more). seglea (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Kenif (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, at least late 50s - early 60s, because I grew up a couple of doors away. He lodged with his brother and sister-in-law in Nightingale Rd, N22. My guess is house number 82. My sister played with his nieces. Starting in the 90s we swapped letters and later emails. My dad had spoken to him, but had no idea who he was until an early GeoSat went up, at which point ACC was in the local paper.
Say What?[edit]
From the "Personal Life" section: "Arthur didn't publicise his sexuality—that wasn't the focus of his life—but if asked, he was open and honest."
Apparently he was anything but "open and honest" in this regard, given that the entire gist of this section is that he was gay, but he never stated, claimed, or admitted to being gay.
Or, might it be that be that he was open and honest, and really wasn't gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Where and when did Clarke state he wasn't gay ? Read carefully instead of trolling : his friends and acquaintances reported that if asked, he was open and honest ; it means that when they asked him, he was open and honest in admitting to them that he was homosexual. 86.212.181.158 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Big Three -Vandalism[edit]
The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct. 2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Big Book of Science Fiction identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does The Rise and Fall of American Science Fiction, from the 1920s to the 1960s, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and Fifty Key Figures in Science Fiction (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). (See also: Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein#Big_Three_-Vandalism and Talk:Isaac Asimov#Big_Three_-Vandalism) Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I stopped reading SF around 1995, never ever Heinlein had been related to as one of the Big Three of SF; Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury was canonic and never questioned, so that now I have difficulties finding written sources ... actually, I learned that from one of my teachers. Bradbury was known for the TV-serial Martian Chronicles and the Truffaut-movie Fahrenheit 451, Heinlein had nothing comparable until late 80s action flick Starship Troopers. And Heinlein wasn't read in Europe due to his political views.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:BCE9:F89E:C42E:1B87 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- (copying from Talk:Robert A. Heinlein as the IP started the same conversation on multiple articles.) I finally got hold of a copy of Billion Year Spree. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Q: what is meaning of "he is still attached to helm"...?[edit]
Howard from NYC (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Q: what is meaning of "he is still attached to helm"...?
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class Somerset articles
- Low-importance Somerset articles
- WikiProject Somerset articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Sri Lanka articles
- Top-importance Sri Lanka articles
- WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
- B-Class science fiction articles
- Top-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class spaceflight articles
- Mid-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles