Talk:Arthur C. Clarke

Say What?

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

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)

Beyond comedy. I and my friends read Heinlein and were great fans. On another point, the whole concept of 'big three' is infantile. I certainly would never put Clarke anywhere near Asimov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.143.109 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2024 (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"...?

Howard from NYC (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Q: what is meaning of "he is still attached to helm"...?

Question is probably from someone from a non-maritime culture - in contrast to Clarke's British upbringing, and his seagoing scuba interests in Sri Lanka. Clarke, and most of his British readership would not need this phrase explained. (Revision - questioner being "from NYC" suggests an urban American origin?)

In "heavy weather" - and particularly under circumstances where waves can break over the deck and the wheel / tiller/ steering oar - it has long been routine for the helmsman (regardless, considering the obsessions up-thread about his/ her/ it's/ their LBGTI+ interests and political declarations) to be roped against the wheel mounting (steering oar post, etc) so that the helmswoman would not be washed over the side when a wave broke over the aft deck. The last modern (launched 2013) vessel I was on, although it had a fully-enclosed wheelhouse, some 40,000 tonnes displacement and a working crew of 190 (20 "marine" ; other scientific and technical staff), and no intention of ever steering into hurricanes, the helmsman's station had solid rails around it for the helmsman to "attach to" in heavy weather. In the event of a well-control situation with a hurricane occurring down on the location, the "essential personnel" plans included sufficient mechanical staff to keep the engines going, and a person with a Master's ticket to try to keep the vessel on station. Plus people to operate the emergency unlatch equipment in the event of not being able to maintain station.

Maritime terminology has some very precise meanings - codified when navies were professionalised in the 17th/ 18th centuries, and in significant parts inherited (where appropriate) by railway, road and aviation legislation and operations practices over succeeding centuries.

AKarley (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Inventor?

The article is listing Clarke as an inventor, among other things. What did he invent though? While it's true he heralded the concept for communication satellites before they became commonplace, I don't think he actually invented one. 2A02:C7C:60A6:3900:8D28:B64B:7ABD:7F14 (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

See the futurism section. Deagol2 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As I recall from his autobiography - though it may be 30 years since I read it - he invented several (then-classified) pieces of radar equipment during WW2 as well as components of the "FIDO" (Fog Intense, Dispersal Of) system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Karley (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing on pedophilia accusations?

Figured it'd be best to discuss it here before putting anything in the article, but there are plenty of mentions in reliable sources about the accusations that Clarke was involved with young boys: , To not report on the accusations in the article is missing a fairly important part of the later half of Clarke's life. Clean Arlene (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

yes, we should add this, being clear he defeated the allegations. Those are good sources to work from for that purpose. Masem (t) 20:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It is already covered in the Knighthood section. Deagol2 (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Homosexual hearsay

re: Arthur C. Clarke entry; It is hearsay about the author being homosexual, hence the unsubstantiated content removed. If you continue to undo this, you are likely to be blocked. Wiki Editorial Review (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't hearsay, and that's not the standard we use here anyway. Our standard for content inclusion is what is recorded by reliable sources, and this content has reliable sources. As multiple editors have informed you, there is no issue with including it. If you continue to edit war, you are likely to be blocked. Jfire (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I always thought Wikipedia was a reliable source for facts, however I see now that's not the case. Thank you for letting me know. Wiki Editorial Review (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"a reliable source for facts" The "facts" in history are disputed, obscure, and often beyond the ability of anyone to reconstruct. Historical accounts deal with rumors and hypotheses. Wikipedia would be a joke if we ignored sourced narratives on historical biographies to satisfy largely imaginary legal standards. If you want whitewashing, try Encyclopædia Britannica. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As for as Wikipedia (and any credible historian I am aware of) is concerned, when multiple highly credible sources report the same thing, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise, we can do the same. That's how Wikipedia works. That's how almost any writing about the past works. Biographies of the deceased invariably rely on sources other than the subject, and the subject themselves is frequently not the best source. With regard to living persons, there are sometimes grounds to take privacy considerations into account when discussing e.g. sexuality, but that is clearly not applicable here. Clerke was unquestionably gay. He discussed it openly with friends. That he chose at the time not to discuss it more widely is unsurprising, given the prejudices then prevalent. We are under no obligation to follow suit. And please note that issuing bogus threats is unlikely to achieve anything beyond antagonising people who actually understand Wikipedia's policies and practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I will add that the way the article is written, it also uses attribution, instead of saying, factually "Clarke was gay" in wikivoice. It reflects that it likely was the case from RSes, but given he never self-stated this to any source of record, we just don't state it plain-as-day factually. Masem (t) 11:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)