Jump to content

Talk:Robert A. Heinlein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.32.30.220 (talk) at 21:21, 20 February 2012 (→"For the record"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleRobert A. Heinlein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 20, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
March 14, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Marx

"Many of Heinlein's stories explicitly spell out a view of history that could be compared to Marx's: social structures are dictated by the materialistic environment." Is very misleading. Ayn Rand believed social structures were dictated by the materialistic environment, but she was hardly a communist (actually, she was kind of the opposite). I think the sentence should be removed. --12.3.61.131 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think the Political section of this article is important, however Heinlein's writing is often difficult to discern his political convictions. Perhaps it is best to site quotations and note their apparent contradictions within the context of his character development. I have not read any of his non-fiction, so it's possible I don't know of some his more explicit philosophy WovenLore (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein not only rejects the revealed faith of Communism as offhandedly as H.L. Mencken before him, he was explicitly a fan of Ayn Rand's novel "The Fountainhead," as quoted in Grumbles from the Grave. I added three instances of Ayn Rand's influence, the above, his dismissal of altruism in Stranger... and his enshrining of John Galt in the pantheon of heroes predating the lunar revolution (...Harsh Mistress). Just as intellectuals of the looter persuasion will persist in injecting Marx as a purported influence, I'll lay five to two odds that like the graveyard Communists in "Orwell's Homage to Catalonia" (obliterating crosses from headstones) they will chisel away at the references to Ayn Rand's influence for as long as the Wikipedia is up. translator (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

images of covers

User Ricky81682 deleted the images of the book covers, undoing a large amount of work at one stroke, without prior discussion on the talk page. His edit summary says "rm non-free book cover being used just for illustrative purposes," but he doesn't actually seem to have checked whether that was true. For instance, the section on race actually refers to some of the book covers, and discusses discrepancies between the cover images and the text. Also, the text explicitly discusses the scratchboard style of the Clifford Geary illustrations, and without an image, users aren't going to know what that style is. I've put the images back in.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that was in response to the FAR. But they were not deleted, just not linked from here anymore. Those that are discussed should stay, but only if the discssion is on topic and not crow-barred in to allow images. Presumably Heinlein had no creative control or even input into the cover images of his books? I'm not sure what discussing the book covers says about him - almost nothing? Unfortunately, at least one of the images was deleted for not being used in any article. YobMod 12:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip K. Dick Quote

I don't know where one would squeeze [quote] into the article, but I think it should at least be here on the talk page: "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him -- one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love." Austinmayor (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a useful critical source

There's a large amount of useful material about Heinlein in The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World, by Thomas M. Disch, 1998. Disch devotes a huge amount of space to Heinlein, whom he sees as a pivotal figure in SF. Compared to Panshin and Franklin, Disch's book is much more up to date. (E.g., it discusses Heinlein's early involvement with EPIC, which wasn't publicly known when Panshin and Franklin were writing.) I wonder if the biography by Bill Patterson is actually going to be published. IIRC he was asked to make significant cuts, and it's been several years since its originally scheduled date of publication. I hope it's not going to be a casualty of the present state of the publishing industry.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have a copy of the (large but apparently significantly reduced) MS for review; it's scheduled for publication in 2010, if the crick don't rise. RLetson (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Is there an ISBN yet?--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, I was never asked to make significant cuts in the ms., nor do I know of any factual ground for such a statement. Once I was finished writing both volumes in 2005, I condensed (rather than cut) the ms. to what I thought was a reasonable degree, and then it was submitted in the market. Hartwell has actually had me restoring some of the condensation -- more in the second volume, the first-pass of edit of which has just been finished, than in the first. Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.62.93 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some problem with adding related links to this page? I added a link to the Heinlein Nexus web site yesterday, and it was removed within minutes. Heinlein Nexus is a major Heinlein legacy support organization and the "child" of three other major Heinlein organizations and efforts. It involves many of the most significant figures in Heinlein scholarship and is at present by far the most active Heinlein community site on the web. Why was this link removed? 75.144.98.245 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe who removed it thought you, not being registered, were involved with the site (and according to the rules, you can't add your own sites to WP). Or maybe the domain wasn't working correctly. Last week I had DNS problems connecting to the Heinlein Nexus site. I just re-added the link, in case someone removes it again, I hope they'll provide a reason. I also re-added "site:RAH" to the list. It was certainly there once, and it must have been removed by mistake, it being the main unofficial RAH site out there (besides being the only real site abour RAH for maybe a decade...) Laz (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unvarnished?

Re: " He was one of the first writers to break into mainstream, general magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post, in the late 1940s, with unvarnished science fiction.":

What exactly is "unvarnished" supposed to mean here? TheScotch (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unvarnished", in this sense, means that it was "real", not prettied-up or disguised as something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.2 (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three?

Re: " He was among the first authors of bestselling, novel-length science fiction in the modern, mass-market era. For many years, Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke were known as the 'Big Three' of science fiction.":

Thought it was Bradbury, Clarke, and Asimov (with Heinlein lagging just a bit behind--one foot in the B camp). In any case, if we're going to reference someone's opinion about this then I think the reference and a direct quote need to go directly into the article. TheScotch (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Bradbury never was in that "list", it's always been RAH. If we really need a reference (and I don't think we do), we might copy the one from the Asimov page. Laz (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov, Clarke, & Heinlein were always thought of as the major three writers of what was seen as "Hard- SF" Bradbury was harder to classify & was seen as more of a "science -Fantasy", or even "Horror" writer. Also Bradbury was never published in Astounding (seen as the High Watermark of serious Hard SF ). Bradbury's breakthrough into mainstream publishing was considered by some (like James Blish) a side effect of his not really writing "Hard SF". Many in the SF lit. community 'Ghetto' thought the mainstream reading public incapable of understanding 'Hard SF'. That is also what is meant by Heinlein breaking in with "Unvarnished SF". It was very unusual to read anything like "Astounding style SF" in the slick magazines- but Heinlein repeated the trick several times. Clarke & Asimov only really made the slicks with their science essays & articles- not fiction. ... Just sayin' ---MBD--- 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.81.62 (talk)

Possible Source for this distinction of "The Big Three" is Prof. Drout, He has committed one of his courses about Science Fiction to the Modern Scholar series. Obviously he is not the only one to have name them "The Big Three" but he is a respectable authority. WovenLore (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Kids?

No mention of children. If he didn't have any, did he ever go on record as to why? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear he didn't have children - I saw an FAQ mention that Heinlein fans were sometimes called "Heinlein's Children" - and the NY Times specifically mentions only his wife as a survivor: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/10/obituaries/robert-a-heinlein-is-dead-at-80-renowned-science-fiction-writer.html?scp=1&sq=%22Robert%20Heinlein%22%20obituary&st=cse
Why? Who knows. Maybe he just didn't want to raise them. If Heinlein were a Heinleinian hero, he would've had a gaggle; but then, if he were a Heinleinian hero, he would also have done a Door Into Summer... --Gwern (contribs) 23:38 18 January 2010 (GMT)
Nah, he'd have done a To Sail Beyond the Sunset and wound up dissing Hilda and letting the kids be raised on Tertius while doing the Time Lord stuff. There are very few Heinlein kid characters, other than the "young" versions (as in TDiS and Time for the Stars of women who go on to marry the lead character (also in Time Enough for Love). The average Heinlein character under 16 are fairly stereotypical, such as the bratty kid brother who shows up in a number of the short stories. He didn't know much about children.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He knew EXACTLY what many kids wanted to read. That is more than most parents know about their kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.2 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with anyone else without children, he may have been infertile for any number of reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may not have been infertile at all. All we know is that he was not a father. That fact alone does not make someone infertile. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

Should there be a discussion of awards for his writing? Should it be a separate section? Sspitsbergen (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)sspitsbergen[reply]

I think so... right now it says he won Hugos for four novels but doesn't even say which ones... go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debora Aro

"Robert A. Heinlein. 1997. Debora Aro is wrong. New York: Del Rey. Outlines thoughts on coincidental thoughts and behaviour and the famous argument over the course of three days with Debora Aro, renowned futurologist."

Is this real? I am a major Heinlein fan and have never heard of it. Is it a book or what? I can't find such a book on Amazon or anywhere else, and googling it brings up on Wikipedia and mirrors. The same thing happens when I search for "Debora Aro." Unless someone can prove this is real and give more information, I think it should be removed.VoodooLord7 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I follow Heinlein scholarship and know of no such book. I suspect a prank. The item was added on 5/10/09 by an editor using this account [[1]]. There are only four contributions from this account in a three-week period. One was vandalism and one was just strange (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_supranuclear_palsy&diff=prev&oldid=289984228). I say cut it. RLetson (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On race

The article says: "Heinlein reveals near the end of Starship Troopers that the novel's protagonist and narrator, Johnny Rico, the formerly disaffected scion of a wealthy family, is in fact of Filipino descent."

In fact, I think this is pretty common in his books, I mean drooping hints that the key character is not white:

  • in Friday, there is a very clear reference to the fact that Friday is dark skinned,
  • in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, there are also hints that the colonel is of african descent,
  • in Glory Road, that I am currently re-reading, there is also what looks like a hint: (I translate from french): I have nothing against our little yelllow comrades, certainly not the fact that they are yellow. I was in any case more dark skinned (or tanned?) than they were, except at the place of my scar that was rose.... I do not have the english text. In french, it is translated as "bronzé", which can refer either to a skin tone due to race or to sun tanning. Can somebody check? It is in the beginning of the novel, ~10th page of text, around the end of the 1st chapter, when Oscar is in Singapore, just before his little misadventure with a taxi driver. But in any case, the point is that the character cannot be sun tanned "averywhere but at the place of the scar" at that moment that is way before he ends ups on a nudist beach.

Can anybody provide quotations in english to source this and, as the case may be, expand the article on that point? Asavaa (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a copy of Friday someplace. It's in the conversation with Brian, the New Zealand senior husband. With Cat, I don't have a copy (I did not care for much of RAH's later stuff) but it is in something Colin says when he's angry, I think he calls someone a honky. With Rico, it is on the last page, one of the ships is named after a Filipino and Rico comments on it (but come on, Juan Rico, and he's mentioned as having relatives in Buenos Aires, it is more ethnicity than race there. My impression would be light skinned, almost pure Spanish with as little as possible native blood (judging by the attitudes of Juan's parents and his relatives). Not sure if I have a copy of Glory Road, can you say what scene it is in?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Podkayne is mentioned as somewhat dark skinned and Uncle Tom even more so. Maori ancestry.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for the information.
re Glory Road: as I mentionned, in my french language copy it is around the 10th page of text. It is near the end of the 1st chapter, when E.C./Oscar is in Singapore. He just called a taxi, then enters into various considerations amongst others on love/sex with asiatic women. It is then that I find the line I tried to quote/translate herebefore. After these considerations he suddenly discovers the taxi driver brought him the wrong way.
And I think you are correct for Podkayne.
There is clearly a method here: Heinlein presents us a character we are supposed to identify/sympathize with, then he presents us, sometimes very late, with indications that the character is not WASP.
As you note, in Starship Troopers the character is just spanish, so not very dark, that is also the reason why I thought other works of Heinlein were more relevant to this "method". Asavaa (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for my copy of Glory Road in a couple of days (not presently at home). Yes, it is a common Heinlein technique. Manny, if you follow his discussion of his ancestry, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, is certainly of mixed race. I've heard somewhere that Eunice in I Will Fear No Evil is black, but I am uncertain of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Those little brown brothers I had been fighting, with and against, all had little brown sisters [ ... ] I did not object to little brown sisters because they were brown. I was as brown as they were, in my face, except for a long pink scar." (Bolding mine.) A few pages later he says that on the French Riviera "I put on trunks and enjoyed the floor show and added to my tan." Cactus Wren (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Wehwalt, the bit you cite from The Cat Who Walks Through Walls has Colin addressing a character he refers to as "Little Black Sambo" as follows: "Look, boy, I'm mighty glad that your skin color matches mine. [ ... ] Because, if it didn't, I would be called a racist for the way I despise you." Cactus Wren (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Also, please remember we would really need a third party reliable source commenting on this technique (and I have no doubt it is an intentional technique) before we could really use it in the article, especially if this is ever going to be a FA again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactus Wren: Thank you very much. The bold part, about the face, is completely absent from the french version (so you can judge my translation above: "Je n'ai rien contre nos petites camarades jaunes : rien du tout et je ne leur reproche en tout cas pas d'être jaunes. J'étais aussi bronzé qu'elles, d'ailleurs, sauf à l'endroit de ma cicatrice qui était toute rose").
@Wehwalt: you are right, but the article does already say, for the moment: "Heinlein challenges his readers' possible racial preconceptions by introducing a strong, sympathetic character, only to reveal much later that he or she is of African or other descent; in several cases, the covers of the books show characters as being light-skinned, when in fact the text states, or at least implies, that they are dark-skinned or of African descent". I was just thinking of adding examples.
What is a FA by the way? Fandom Article? Asavaa (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article, WP:FA. This article used to be one but standards rose and this article deteriorated. Really, almost everything should be cited to a WP:RS reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inventions presaged by Heinlein

I would suggest that this list needs to be heavily edited as several of the items listed were invented before Heinlein was even born and not presaged by him. The Water bed (A form of waterbed was invented in the early 1800s by the Scottish physician Neil Arnott. ), the moving sidewalk (The first moving walkway debuted at the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, in Chicago, Illinois.), the solar panel (in 1883 the first solar cell was built, by Charles Fritts.)


Suggest adding Segway to the list of inventions. In the "Roads must roll" he describes a Tumble Bug a single wheeled vehicle that stays up by gyroscopes

That would be appropriate, if the Segway were a single wheeled vehicle. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like this: http://www.autoexoticanews.com/category/single-wheel-vehicle/ Phrost (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
or these: Abel (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solowheel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEALjHvadVQ
self-balancing electric scooter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7uvv7EYqg0
Honda U3-X Personal Mobility Device: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBnu5tnpwUU
  • I think this list is basically misleading unless we entitle it "Inventions presaged by Heinlein after a lot of other people had also presaged them". As much as I love his work, the more I read, the more I learn that everything he presaged was already envisioned by somebody else. Hell, even he often admitted that he just "gave the idea a new paint job and filed off the serial number" on a lot of his work. Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

male nudity is essentially non-existent, as are male homosexuals

Besides being unsourced, this just isn't so.

User:Svanslyck, per WP:BURDEN, please justify the inclusion of this material that you have admitted[2] is not based on any source. Dlabtot (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, a great deal of the article is unsourced. As I also pointed out, I used the word "essentially." For those coming in late, the entire passage that Dlabtot has reverted twice from the section on sexual liberation is:
"Throughout his books the focus is on heterosexual love in the male experience. Except for the protagonist, male nudity is essentially non-existent, as are male homosexuals."
Though it should have been stated more like, "Throughout his books the focus in terms of sexual liberty is on heterosexual love in the male experience," the first sentence is unequivocally true when viewing Heinlein's work as a whole. Now nothing says has to espouse anything. This editor does, however, recognize the one-sidedness of Heinlein's "sexual liberation," and it should be pointed out in any objective review of his work, as was done on this webpage, where the author wrote,

[T]here is no question that, in his adult work, all Heinlein’s males and females really like to have sex, and there’s virtually no homosexuality in any of it. It’s a hetero universe, with but a few nods in the direction of gay existence. (One extremely embarrassing quote from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long attempts to make a case for homosexuality being spiritually abnormal and a subject for sympathy rather than condemnation. But the same charge of being uncomfortable and parochial about homosexuality can be laid at the grave of many a writer, male and female, of his era, even influential writers.)

Add up all the times Heinlein expressed his opinions on sexual liberation. Then add up all the times he included references to homosexuality - even in so veiled a sense as two naked straight men with one naked straight woman at the breakfast table - and his worldview becomes clear. Heinlein had a worldview and gay people were certainly in it, but as an afterthought only. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 01:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever read I Will Fear No Evil? Not that it matters, you don't seem to have addressed the WP:BURDEN. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN does not obligate me to prove a negative. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 12:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is asking you to 'prove a negative'. WP:BURDEN requires you to justify the inclusion of material in an article. That is what you are being asked to do. Dlabtot (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the the passage I quoted above. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's just some blog by an unknown author. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, have you read I Will Fear No Evil? At some point RH discusses the possibility of 6 different gender roles, consisting of 3 different sexual orientations and two sexes. The novel itself is an exploration of all the various possibilities. Recall that the old man whose brain winds up in his young female secretary's body, finds that he's now bisexual. As was his secretary (whose mind is somehow still in there with him). SBHarris 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read it. Again, my comment is not about one item in one book; it's about the tone of his work as a whole. I mean, where's the brother-brother or brother-father incest? Now I'm not a fan of incest but if Heinlein wants to be the sexual libertarian, he should have been intellectually honest about it. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 12:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, this is 100% your opinion, not based on any reliable source, right? Dlabtot (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the the passage I quoted above. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of unknown, un-notable people have blogs in which they say all sorts of things. Thank you for confirming that this is not based on any reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you made it a personal crusade to be rude and insulting? Editors are supposed to work TOGETHER. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall any male-male homosexuality (without the involvement of any females) onstage in any of Heinlein's books (disregarding Jake's description of a youthful attempt at same in The Number of the Beast. I do not recall any great tabu on male nudity, given the climactic scene of Stranger in a Strange Land, in which book the nudity tabu does come in for some mocking. I don't think it is explicitly described very often elsewhere, though. However, I don't see this as a very productive argument. People should be trying to get this back to Featured Artice status, not quibbling about details.
I agree. What would be helpful would be for User:Dlabtot to focus on revising my edit to bring it into accord with the facts of Heinlein's works, instead of just deleting it. I have, for example, not seen a single word objecting to the first sentence. Enwiki's rules are to help us in that. Improving the article does not, alas, to be on the agenda. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein does have some homosexuality, Galahad of "Time Enough for Love" comes to mind, as do the examples cited above. There seems to be a myth that if an author who has many opinions does not address "all" things, that the few things not addressed are somehow lacks. I disagree. That Einstein did not speak much to chemistry does not mean we need to add to the Einstein article that he was anti-chemist or that chemistry didn't exist in his universe. He just didn't get around to it. Likewise, Heinlein spoke on tons of things. So did Asimov. Neither spoke much of homosexuality. We can name many authors who spoke little on homosexuality. We can say that the same authors didn't speak much of turnips. What of it? Neither homosexuality or turnips need a mention just for an author not speaking of it as much as heterosexuality or apples. Alexandria177 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism

The essay by Jeff Riggenbach at misses.org accurately states that many libertarians have found inspiration in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. However it does not make a case that Heinlein was a libertarian, had libertarian beliefs, nor does it make the case that Heinlein intended the book to illustrate or espouse such beliefs. In fact, the article says just the opposite - "He found social and political ideas — ideas about the different ways human beings might figure out to live together peaceably in large groups — endlessly fascinating. He liked to fool around with such ideas, speculate about how they might work out in practice. Libertarian ideas weren't the only ones he fooled around with and speculated about in his fiction."

And since the essay makes absolutely no mention of any other work by Heinlein, it certainly cannot be used in support of a sentence that includes the clause "A strong current of libertarianism runs through his work". Heinlein's writing do show a consistent theme of the primacy of individual conscience over obedience to authority, but whether this is properly characterized as libertarianism is not clear. Dlabtot (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A much broader and more nuanced discussion of Heinlein's writings on the concept of freedom appears in Alexei Panshin's Heinlein in Dimension, chapter 7, section 2, 'Liberty'. [3]. I'm going to read this a few times to fully digest it before I attempt to integrate it into the article text. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

socialist?

Someone included Heinlein on category: American socialists I cannot see any evidence to include him there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.178.199 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein early on (1938) did support some elements or aspects of socialisim. Specificlly "free love." However, his writings began to reflect a dechantment with socialist beliefs. A few examples:
•There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. - Robert A. Heinlein
•Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. - Robert A. Heinlein
•Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed. - Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
•There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. - Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Here is one interesting observation on Heinlein,
"From the socialism he embraced in the late 1930s to the Libertarianism and conservative Republicanism he embraced in the late 1960s and 70s was a big shift, one which offended those who agreed with the free love socialism in some of his novels. Suddenly, Heinlein was a conservative old fart: his female characters were not believable, and of course his seemingly pro-conservative works were "preachy"." See: link here.

Does this need to be in the article? Maybe. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you (people) have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Anyone who actively worked for Upton Sinclair's EPIC from 1934 through 1939 is a "socialist" by definition. (I include the Yes on 5 Oil Reserve campaign in 1939, as he was specifically recruited for that work by former EPIC governor Cuthbert Olsen).

As to whether it needs to be in the article, I would say yes, for the reason that any labeling of Heinlein as simply "conservative" without qualification in his later works is a serious misreading of the texts. There is more explicit radical socialism (albeit of the Wellsian, turn-of-the-twentieth kind) in the last five or six novels than in any other of his works (except, possibly, For us, the Living, which is a special case). Establishing his early political activity as socialist democrat, at a time when the radical wing of the democratic party was confessedly socialist, helps provide a foundation for critical reading of the last texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.62.93 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Taboos?

Heinlein wrote a remarkable number of books in which themes of incest and underage sex were present. Far from being a secret, it has generated major discussion and controversy over the decades, and is dealt with in part at the Heinlein Society website.

While few nowadays would raise eyebrows over his group sex and group marriage themes - except to think that they'd be more difficult then he thought - the subject of incest and pedophilia are still taboo, and with what most of us would feel to be for good reasons.

I feel, as did some before me, that such a major controversy is worthy of a mention, in a neutral fashion, of course. Thus I've distinguished between "Sexual liberation" and "Sexual Taboos", as his thoughts on the sex roles of women - versus his thoughts on the sex roles of children and/or relatives - are two subjects, not one.

Alexandria177 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, your additions constitute original research, for the most part, which is frowned upon here. WP:OR is a good link to read, to discover why. Also, the quality of the writing that you attempted isn't great yet (which doesn't mean it can't be, just that it's not at this point. Don't keep reinserting such controversial material without discussing it here. Lithistman (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you can "tell" is incorrect. As it happens, the subject had already been brought up, and I expanded it. I also - unlike how it was originally - added a citation to it, so that any could see that it was a topic that was not original with me or the previous contributors. It's an observation and issue of several decades.
If flat out listing things is boring, I'm sorry, and will work on my "style". But inevitably, a subject important enough to be addressed by the site dedicated to Heinlein, and important enough that his critics, reviewers and fellow authors have wrote on it, will need to be put back. If need be, and if it's the only issue, I can easily site far more sources then The Heinlein Society. Though that would have seemed to have been a sufficient one.
Alexandria177 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, it was already mentioned in the text. The mention it was given there was plenty of coverage for this article. The expansion you've attempted is not necessary. If you want to simply add your citation to what already exists in the article, that's fine. However, an expansion of that material is completely unnecessary. Lithistman (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lithistman, I guess I'm concerned because your reason for taking down my contribution keeps changing, and with no apology or explanation. The apology would have just been a courtesy, but the explanation is kind of crucial in a "discussion".
Apparently you had not read the original, just took down my addition. I assert this due to the fact that if you had read the original, you'd hardly have then thought that I was engaging in "original" research. You now have shifted to the defense that "I didn't delete you for it being bad writing or original research, it's just too much extra information."
Who decides such? If members, is there a membership status that I lack that makes you the final word? The instructions I read said "be bold". I added nothing untrue. I added a citation where none had been before. When you said it was bad writing, I tried to clean and tidy it up, so that the extra information flowed. When you accused me of original research, I showed it was not.
While new, I would think that the burden of a wholesale deletion would be on the deleter. That short of my addition violating a specific rule or guideline, it would stay. I would also think that a "discussion" page would be for discussion, but you have so far just flat out asserted things to me with no explanations, and no regrets when found to be in error.
I feel the addition I put in was of value. I would like to know what about it's length was inappropriate.
Alexandria177 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one "deleted you" and there's not certain membership status here, as far as I can tell. What you wrote was poorly-written, and expanded FAR too much on a topic already discussed. As far as the burden being on "the deleter", that's just patently untrue. This used to be a featured article. It's not anymore. I would encourage you to read the article milestones in order to find out why that is. Also, I have nothing to "apologize" for, as calling someone's writing "poor" isn't anything more than a comment about the writing, not the writer. You should not expect apologies for such. Lithistman (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a reading of some of the rules here, what you did looks like what they call "blanking" here. Especially as you had no real reason to do so - I had wrote nothing untrue and nothing that violated any rule or guideline. You could have "Assumed good faith" or decided to "Be polite" or "Be welcoming". Writing "poorly" is a rather subjective reason, and in the indiscriminate blanking you did, you also took out the much needed reference to a previously uncited section. Had you left that citation in, one could have called all you did an "edit", but you threw out the good, bad and ugly, every word and citation I added, with no thought to whether it was good or bad, needed or not, an original or an expansion.
As to calling my writing "poor", I never asked for an apology for that. That's your opinion, and I'm sure I'll live. I spoke of apologies in the context you changing your reasons for your wholesale blanking, but didn't ask for one in that case either. That you didn't notice that shows me again that you are quick to react without actually reading and understanding much of what you react to.
I'd have also thought an apology would have been appropriate for implying that I was submitting "original research", which is against the rules here. As it happened, I had not, as you'd have known if you had looked at the reference I added before blanking that. Now you speak of me "expanding", apparently still overlooking your original assertion of it being "original research".
As to membership status, I'm glad we're on the same page. You see, this is the "discussion page", and while I keep asking how to improve, or why things were done as they were, you keep giving orders. To most people I know, this implies that you think you are the final word. As you admit there is no extra status, let us discuss this.
I ask again, how was it "too much"? I took one section that had two distinct topics in it - topics that were (and are) jumbled together - and made two sections out of it. I elaborated upon the topic, in a neutral fashion, and added a reference. I offered to add more references for you if you liked. As you admit we are equal in membership status, and as this is the discussion page, I will certainly hope that now I will finally get an answer to that.
I am, after all, willing to do further modifications. I read - and liked - Wikipedia's section on compromising as a means of resolving disputes. I would - at this point - recommend that there be two sections, one for his views on Sexual liberation and one for his views on Sexual taboos. Those are demonstrably seperate subjects, and as it is now, it is jumbled and not flowing. As you have it, it goes from his views on gender roles to his views on child sex and incest, and back again abruptly to gender roles. Besides correcting that, I would then forego the synopsis I wrote of the type of incest in each book, and simply include my listing out of his ten books that do that, and the response of his contemporaries and supporters. That would considerably shorten it up, to only a few extra sentences, instead of the several extra paragraphs you have expressed concern about.
Would that work? If not, please propose a compromise of your own for me to think about. But please avoid telling me off again for things I've not said, or things I've not done. That's been dragging this out longer than is needful. Remember, it's not like others can't see what we've wrote.
Alexandria177 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is most definitely not "blanking" to remove such unnecessary additions. I know that you really want to expand that portion of the article. Also, I don't "have it" any particular way. I have simply reverted to a status quo version, until something workable can be created. I don't find it particularly useful to list out 10 books that deal with incest. I would instead suggest that if you have a problem with the order that the issue is dealt with in the current text, work on that before trying to add in a bunch of additional text dealing with the subject. Also, you will want to consider how you are using "wrote" in your writings. That was one major grammatical error in your initial attempts, that you've repeated above in your last sentence. The phrase "we've wrote" is read grammatically as "we have wrote", which is incorrect. You also employed a double negative earlier in the same sentence: "...not like others can't see..." I would suggest you create a subtopic of this thread, where you compose your changes to the given text, and I (or anyone else watching this page) can help you "clean it up" a bit, grammatically speaking. It will also allow for constructive dialogue on whether or not a given expansion of the sex issues is truly necessary. Lithistman (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "double negative" was needful. "It is not like others can't see" is thus "it is like others can see" - which was my point. Expressing it that way is because it is a manner of speaking, and we are discussing things here, not exchanging correspondence. Once again, you are accusing someone of being wrong when they are not. And, on a matter that in no way helps in any resolution of what we were discussing.
As to "we've wrote", you don't get it. I'm not writing "War and Peace" here, I'm chatting with a guy who seems to want to do all in his power to upset people, and nothing in his power to work anything out. I note in passing that you didn't catch all of my errors in form, nor seem to be aware of some of your own. To cite one instance, you did not need to put the word "apologize" in quotes the way you previously did. I'd have mentioned it before, but thought it petty, irrelevent and counter-productive.
I am sorry that I put a wrong use of "wrote" in my addition and clean up of the article itself. Would that you would have simply corrected that, as I have done so to other articles. You may be sure that no matter how long I am here, I will never see a newcomer post a true addition with needed references, and revert the whole thing over the wrote/written "issue".
I proposed a compromise. You have counter-proposed (after your standard denials of any wrong doing and gratuitous condescensions) that I put my suggested version here in a sub-topic so that you and others can help "'clean it up' a bit, grammatically speaking.". Any reading this exchange know what that means I'll be in store for. Ironically it was Heinlein himself who once pointed out the importance of giving an editor errors to correct. "...after he pisses in it, he likes the flavor better, and will buy it." was how I think Heinlein put it.
But let it not be said that I can't 'go the extra mile'. (Did you catch that double negative? Yes, it is supposed to be there.) I'll do the sub-topic thing you proposed. I actually would find such critiques valuable, especially if there are truly "others" who would care enough to do so. At the moment, though, you seem the only person enjoying this enough to spend time on me.
I feel you have wronged me here, and that you are continuing to do so. I view it as blanking, as you took out parts that you have admitted later were appropriate. In other words, you did not remove things on the basis of them needing to be removed, you removed things on the basis of it being what I added. You admit that you simply reverted it. You admit that the citation was actually appropriate and have earlier already said that I could put it back. That kind of indiscriminate deleting seems almost the text book definition of blanking, and if it is not, it will do until "blanking" comes along.
Now, while you gather about you your justifications for why you've been the perfect gentlemen and voice of reason in this "discussion", I'll be working on submitting that "sub-topic".
Alexandria177 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop. You need to stop now. Your self-pitying is beyond the pale, and is not conducive to anything, more or less a reasonable discussion. Let me put this more simply: there will be no massive expansion of this section, absent a clear consensus to do so. I have no problem with a reworking of it, with a citation being added to what now exists, or both. You clearly have no real idea what "blanking" means, and I'm finished trying to explain it to you, when you simply keep acting aggrieved every time I reply. I'm done feeding that.
Now, as to your work below, I'll take a look in the next day or so, and see how it compares with what's already there, length-wise, as well as with regards to focus. You seem to be trying to really shift the focus of the section, which I'm not convinced is either necessary or appropriate. Could I be wrong? Certainly. But there are multiple people who watch this page, I'm sure, and unless there develops some type of consensus for your proposed changes, they should simply remain in the "proposed" phase, for now. I'm not sure when Lithistman (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now a demand that I "stop" on a discussion page in which we are co-equal members? Remarkable. And you committed another error. You can't actually be "finished" explaining to me about blanking, because besides denying that you blanked when you did, you haven't started to explain yet. And again, you fail to address anything said, acknowledge no previous errors, and continue on merrily with your own agenda, whatever that shifts to for the moment.
I am glad that you have no problem with "re-working" or adding "citations", two things that you previously blanked. When we've reached our consensus, I'll put that citation back up with the corrections. I was fascinated to see you try to shift this to some kind of future vote. That's not what the discussion page is for. We - you and I - are trying to reach a consensus, this isn't about how many nics you can send over or call upon to "vote".
I don't doubt there are multiple people who watch this page, though, and therefore, your continued effort to dictate terms won't work. You really are fascinating, in that you seem to have this odd belief that you get to do that. I feel you have entirely overlooked the rules, and am only continuing this "discussion" as my correction is so obviously going to go up eventually in some form that I can afford to indulge you for the moment. You are, after all, arguing against a proposal that added what was required, and tightened it up.
I can't actually have "shifted the focus", though. My proposed correction shortened the previously existing topic a tad, was less lurid, more clear, and had a citation.
Alexandria177 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished communicating with you. You're more interested in accusing me of various sins against you (including sock puppeting to influence votes!?) than you are in actually working out any differences. As for "indulging" me, and being confident that you can force your changes through, it's ironic that you are attempting to be condescending to me. When you hone your writing skills a bit, and learn to work cooperatively, perhaps you will find others more willing to work with you. Lithistman (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never once tried to "work with me", and any who can read can see that. It doesn't count as "working out differences" when you start by indiscriminately blanking, accusing of original research, etc., and then get testy when I refused to be bullied and instead choose to take the inordinate amount of time needed to answer all your charges. It saddens me to contemplate how many new members you have drove off due to them not having the patience to endure you and your ever shifting concerns.
At no point did you ask or suggest or instruct or guide, rather you falsely asserted things not true, demanded changes minor at best and ordered as if you were on the board Wikipedia. Given that I accepted every meaningless change you proposed in the interest of peace, when the only solid thing you came up with was that I used "wrote" instead of "written", I'd say that's me working with you rather well. Not once in all of this did you at any point admit any wrong at all, choosing to simply ignore any thing I said that showed you to be in error and attacking on a different - and equally invalid - point. You entirely overlooked the precepts here of "Be welcoming" and "Assume good faith".
It is good to hear you aren't going to "communicate" with me any more. I am sorry for the next newbie you choose to blank. It strikes me as obvious that you only get away with this when the other decides it's not worth their time, or falsely assumes from your manner and tone that you are a supervisor. I think that's sad.
You have not made my arrival here pleasant, and only my assumption that not everyone is like you is why I'll stay.
Alexandria177 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only response to this is that you really really REALLY need to figure out what "blanking" means. It is most certainly not removing recent, poorly-written additions to an article, and moving to the talk page. I'll thank you to stop making accusations when you clearly have no idea what "blanking" really means. Lithistman (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why "figure out", when it's so clearly stated?
Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
This is where you will point out that your reasons were "non-frivolous", forgetting that the edit record showed you said "bad". And that you threw out a needed citation in doing so. And that on this discussion page, the only "bad" you ever spoke of that held up was that I used the word "wrote" instead of "written". Your previously claim - shown to be false - was that it was bad due to it being "original research" when the very thing you reverted it to was the exact same topic!
We had agreed on what to put up again. I gave in to all your critiques, I suggested exactly what to put, you said to go ahead. You coming back now is stirring up what was already resolved. Or were you hoping for no response, so you could blank again?

Alexandria177 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Topic of Needed Changes to 'Sexual liberation'

At the request of Lithistman, rather than me correct some of the problems in that section, I will put my corrections and additions here first, so that everyone can have a chance to suggest any more needed changes in style, grammar, length, etc.

Here is as it stands now:

Sexual liberation

For Heinlein, personal liberation included sexual liberation,[citation needed] and free love was a major subject of his writing starting from the 1939 For Us, The Living.[citation needed]

During his early period, Heinlein's writing for younger readers needed to take account of both editorial perceptions of sexuality in his novels, and potential perceptions amongst the buying public; as critic William H. Patterson has put it, his dilemma was "to sort out what was really objectionable from what was only excessive over-sensitivity to imaginary librarians".[42] By his middle period, sexual freedom and the elimination of sexual jealousy were a major theme of Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), in which the progressively minded reporter, Ben Caxton, acts as a dramatic foil for the less parochial characters, Jubal Harshaw and Valentine Michael Smith (Mike).[citation needed]

In later books, Heinlein dealt with incest and the sexual nature of children. A scene in Glory Road has a mother and her daughters offer their sexual favors to the protagonist—the more of them he accepts, by their cultural standards, the more he honors them—but, bound by his own Earthly inhibitions, he does them the dishonor of refusing their offer. In Time Enough for Love, Lazarus Long uses genetic arguments to initially dissuade a brother and sister he has adopted from sexual experimentation with each other, but he later arranges for them to be married, having discovered that they (in an extremely rare but scientifically possible circumstance) are not brother and sister on a genetic level; he also consummates his strong sexual attraction to his own mother, whom he goes back in time to see again. Also in Time Enough for Love, Long is himself cloned into two female forms, Lorelei Lee and Lapis Lazuli, who later seduce him. In some of Heinlein's books, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, for instance, sexual urges between daughters and fathers are exemplified and briefly discussed on several occasions. Later in the same book, the protagonist/narrator (Maureen Johnson) discovers that her two youngest children are engaged in heterosexual incest. After failing to dissuade them from the relationship, she forcibly returns the two to their father, and never mentions them again.

Gary Westfahl points out that "Heinlein is a problematic case for feminists; on the one hand, his works often feature strong female characters and vigorous statements that women are equal to or even superior to men; but these characters and statements often reflect hopelessly stereotypical attitudes about typical female attributes. It is disconcerting, for example, that in Expanded Universe Heinlein calls for a society where all lawyers and politicians are women, essentially on the grounds that they possess a mysterious feminine practicality that men cannot duplicate." [43]

As you can see, it has some flaws. While titled "Sexual liberation", it skips out about several diverse topics. It starts with mentioning his advocacy of free love, and an explanation of how this was difficult in his early works. It then jumps from sexual liberation to sexual taboos - incest and the "sexual nature of children". Those two things are not generally advocated as a part of "sexual liberation", though I believe NAMBLA does so. After that, it shifts to a final paragraph in which it speaks of Heinlein's views on gender roles, arguably a part of a "sexual liberation" topic, but different than the "free love" theme introduced at the start.

Please note that the middle section, arguably the most controversial, is entirely without citations. It also makes an error, as it was not simply in Heinlein's "later books" that he introduced such topics, he had advocated a romantic relationship between a 30 year old and an 11 year old as early as 1956.

I have proposed to take the large middle paragraph out of "Sexual liberation" and make it it's own topic called "Sexual taboos". That topic would be about Heinlein's views on those things. I chose "taboos" as it is softer sounding than "incest" or "child sex", and covers both of those concepts.

That topic would look like this:

Sexual taboos

In books written as early as 1956, Heinlein dealt with incest and the sexual nature of children.

10 of his books ("The Door into Summer", "Time for the Stars", "Glory Road", "Stranger in a Strange Land", "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Time Enough for Love", "Farnham's Freehold", "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" and "Friday") dealt explicitly or implicitly with incest, sexual feelings and relations between adults and children, or both.

Such could be as relatively light a treatment as a 30 year old engineer and an 11 year old girl arranging time travel in such a fashion as to get married when they were both adults, or as strongly controversial as father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister unions.

Authors such as L. Sprague DeCamp and Damon Knight have commented on this matter of Heinlein portraying incest and pedophilia in positive lights, and their views, as well as those who maintain The Heinlein Society website, are not favorable to it.

Now, originally I had proposed a longer section dealing with this, where I listed out several of the books with the specifics (described generally) for each. Due to concerns of length, this one is relatively bare bones. It is in fact shorter than the original treatment. It introduces the topic. It lists the books involved. It speaks very broadly of the range of what he is speaking of within those books. It shows how it was received by his contemporaries and current fans/critics. (I have the citation available, it links to "The Heinlein Society", but more direct citations are available to be added.

I also corrected the wrote/written controversy, but am sure that there are more errors to find.

Alexandria177 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate (and simpler) proposal

Retitle the section as "Sexual issues" or something similar. Rework the existing text as necessary. Cite as necessary. Simpler, cleaner, and less onerous. Lithistman (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's easy enough. I accept.
Title it "Sexual issues" as opposed to two sections called "Sexual liberation" and "Sexual taboos"? Fine. Rework existing text? That can be achieved by taking my proposal above, and putting it at the end of the current "Sexual liberation" instead of the middle. That would have the citation and factual correction back. And actually would be "simpler, cleaner, and less onerous".
Alexandria177 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you like. I have tired of dealing with you every time I log on to Wikipedia. But if you make changes that make the article less well-written, I will replace the better-written text. Lithistman (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having agreed to every change that you proposed, I will implement them in the exact fashion that we agreed on, and all will be able to see that. If you blank that, we will go from there, but you are already not looking good in this. Blanking that which we came to agree on in the talk page will look even worse.
You see, it seems to me, that if something goes up because of an agreed upon consensus in the discussion page, that it should stay until it is re-discussed at a future point. But if you think you can justify a second blanking, you'll find I'm as ready to discuss and accomodate as I was this time.
Alexandria177 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's up now. I'll be adding another citation at some point, though the one does serve. I had planned on tidying up and adding citations to the rest of the section, but for obvious reasons will be holding off on that for a bit. I think "Sex and gender" may make a good title for that section, but for still those obvious reasons will leave it at "Sexual issues".
Alexandria177 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite comfortable with my actions here. If I get a chance, I will take a look at what you've placed in the article, and see if the writing has improved. If it actually improves the article, I have no problem with it. Lithistman (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol...if you "get a chance" you'll "take a look", you who've camped here so long over so little! You've had time to write this, had time to add the next section to talk, and had time to write the more, but of course, no time to look at what you had been so intent about? What audience do you imagine you are fooling? Of course you've looked at it, and if it had not been the changes we'd agreed on, you'd have already reverted it.
Should you wish to have a "discussion" about whether it should now come down, go ahead and propose one, but if you revert an agreed upon change, you are indeed then "blanking". Alexandria177 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I do hope that those who chastised me below for telling Alexandria she needed to grow up will read this missive and reply. I just noticed it myself.) Now, in reply, I'll just say, check my contributions. It's easy enough to do. See if I've "camped out here", before you make these kind of assertions. I don't edit a ton (sometimes DAYS go by between my edits), so how can you make such an assertion? Lithistman (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad this conversation broke down into bickering. This seems a pretty important element in his writing, I noticed it immediately upon reading Time for the Stars and Door Into Summer. I agree that the section needs to be rewritten into clearer language but a lot of these 'edits' start to look like attempts to shut down discussion of certain uncomfortable issues in Heinlein's writing. I've noticed the same issue with edits regarding race, his previous involvement in socialism, etc. Rgelling (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only in America would socialism be lumped in with incest and racism... 90.211.114.219 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Here is a link to my initial reversion.[4] It was poorly-written, and made the article worse. Removing it improved the article. Lithistman (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Poorly-written' doesn't really mean anything, that is to say, it is not constructive criticism - perhaps you could be more specific? Actually if your disagreement is not with the content, but rather how it is expressed, perhaps you could attempt to re-write it so that it would then be, in your opinion, 'well-written'. Dlabtot (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the back-and-forth above. I stated why I thought it was poorly-written. There were grammatical errors, and (if I remember right) even a misspelling and/or capitalization error or two. It was quite poorly-written, just from an objective point-of-view, but Alexandria (of course) took that personally as well. Lithistman (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the outside, you appear to be the one making things personal. Why don't you try improving the grammar or other things about the material that you consider 'poorly-written'? Dlabtot (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the outside? I'd be interested in where I made it personal. Calling writing "poor" is not personal. If I've done so (made it personal), I'll apologize immediately. But, I'll need some type of concrete example of how I made it personal. My only goal here has been to improve the article, period. Lithistman (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you missed it, I already pointed out specific areas where the grammar was quite poor. I've fixed some now. I'll fix more as I find them. Lithistman (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For the record"

Lithistman saw that an article had been improved with a link showing a reference to a claim that had previously been unreferenced. However, he noted that the word "wrote" had been used instead of "written", and he felt that the writing was "bad" - no details or insight into how. So he blanked the whole thing, including the citation, by reverting it back to the uncited/unreferenced form.

After discussion here, in which he was not polite, assumed no good faith, kept changing his reasons for the blanking, and accused of "original research", I agreed to all his proposed changes. He then agreed with my agreement, and it was implemented. From that, it should have been over, but having rested, he's now back to stir it up again, this time with the bold claim that he's not had a chance yet to see if what I corrected it to was what he agreed on.

This is probably preparatory to him blanking again, but time will tell.

Alexandria177 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to grow up. That's all I'll say. Lithistman (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to refrain from personal attacks such as your comment above. See WP:NPA. In general, I don't think your behavior has been conducive to the productive editing of this article in a collaborative manner. Perhaps a review of WP:OWN would be helpful as well. Dlabtot (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dlabtot. I have (purposefully) *not* looked into the details of the dispute between Alexandria177 and Lithistman, but any edit summary along the lines of "edits of this nature MUST be dicussed BEFORE making them. until you have done so, do not readd the material"—produced by Lithistman early on in this long-running saga—don't inspire confidence in one's willingness to work with other editors and assume good faith. YLee (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither party is blameless in this matter. I would urge both to "let it go." This back and forth has grown monotonous and unproductive. I sincerely hope that neither Lithistman nor Alexandria177 will respond any further on this page. I know that both are Heinlein fans and believe they are right. Our similarities are much greater than our differences, guys. Sincerely, Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to assign blame but it is undeniable that this has not been a sterling example of Wikipedia process. I did look at the source in question [5] and I disagree with any assertion that the material constitutes original research. I also take issue with the idea that the Heinlein Society website is not WP:RS for the subject of Heinlein. (Also, we would have to delete or re-source significant portions of this article if that were so.) Personally I think the material adds to the article although it should be more succinct. I'm not sure if I saw the 'latest version'. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have not really read either side's edits. However, someone is claiming that the Heinlein Society is not a reliable source?!? That's flabbergastingly ridiculous. Just look at the board of directors: Among them Joe Haldeman, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Cassutt. Wasn't James Gifford's Heinlein concordance associated with the Society in some way, too? YLee (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: First, how is telling someone they need to grow up, when they have demonstrated that very need, a personal attack? It's simply making a statement. From the moment I reverted, I explained why. Alexandria took everything personally. Lastly, I echo Ylee's question as to who in this discussion said the Heinlein Society wasn't a reliable source? I don't believe I said (or even implied) that, but if I did, I apologize.
Oh, and I had a question about WP:OWN. How does that even apply here? I read it, but I don't understand whatever point you were trying to make by linking it. I haven't attempted to "own" this article, just improve it. Lithistman (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Lithistman, you really need to lighten up, you've come across as a major asshole in this.

Edit Warring

Here are some things Wikipedia has to say about Edit Warring and reverts:

If reverting other editors' changes, be sure to indicate your reasons (unless the reason is obvious, as in the case of vandalism reversion). This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page. Reverting without giving good reasons is more likely to be perceived as combative. Remember that reverting "throws away" the work done by the other editor; consider working to improve on the other editor's text, or discussing it with them, rather than simply undoing their changes.

and...

Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, e.g., "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert (referencing the talk page in your edit summary), rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance.

and...

But if you feel that an edit should not stand yet can't point to any specific reason, for heavens sake, stop and think before you act. (never make any edit without a reason!)

In general:

1.Stop. Think. 2.Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question 3.If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it 4.Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work. Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else.


Imagine the trouble that would have saved - had that been followed. I know I would have felt better.

Alexandria177 (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson bio, rewrite

This article has been in need of a complete rewrite for a long time. The first volume of the Patterson bio is out now, so this would be a good time to get the rewrite done.--75.83.69.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Articles are not given a "complete re-write" everytime a new biography comes out. Or we'd all be doing nothing but for some prominent figures. If Patterson's work reveals hitherto unknown insights or details about Heinlein's life, preferably in a credible manner, then I suppose they should be incorporated in the article here. If you feel this is a good time for that, you may proceed with doing so.
But completing replacing the work of others, so as to share a new way of expressing things from the first volume of a new bio would probably not be appropriate. Alexandria177 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it needed a complete rewrite because a new bio came out. I said it needed a complete rewrite, and the bio's publication would mark a good occasion to do it. If you want to know the reasons that it needs a rewrite, look at the reasons that the article lost its FA status. It's not up to current WP standards.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have expressed an opinion that it needs a rewrite. That's rather broad. You've mentioned that it used to be a higher quality article. Okay. But are you then advocating that the entire article be reverted to the day/month/year it was better, with the loss of any good additions? Or instead of a revert, should it be entirely rewrote, with the loss of any editor's work, and we all hope that the latest rewrite will be better?
Not opposed to improvements, but wish to know what exactly you wish to tackle. It would also help if you had a name, like by registering and logging in. I do, however, appreciate you discussing this before such a sweeping change. Alexandria177 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me throw in a supporting argument for the suggestion that this article has needed a re-write for some time. My agreement with this proposition is that the article is replete with factual errors, misleading statements, and poor methodology (I happen to agree that this is a good time for it, not only because of the biography but because the nonfiction and letters volumes are coming out now from the Virginia Edition, so there is an abundance of newly-published material available, but I don't argue in specific support of that proposition). Consider this passage from the Navy section early on:

. . . He was assigned to the new aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-2) in 1931 . . .

Factually incorrect. Lexington was his first billet in 1929, and he went from the USNA to Lexington with a stopover in Kansas City, where he married Elinor Leah Curry (not in Los Angeles, as is given elsewhere, I do not know why, but in Platte City, Missouri).

. . . where he worked in radio communications, then in its nascent phase, with the carrier's airplanes.

Suppressio veri. He worked as an ensign on many aspects of ship's operations (I wont try to list them here); the radio communications work was the subject of one anecdote which appeared in Expanded Universe (1980), but it is not of the significance suggested by its sole inclusion here (one of those "methodological" problems I noted above). His area of specialization was fire control, and if only aspect of his work aboard Lexington is to be mentioned, it should be that (particularly as it actually shows up in some of his writing, e.g., Citizen of the Galaxy). Also, I'm not entirely sure that by 1929 radio communication with aircraft can legitimately be called "in its nascent phase," without qualifying explanation, but that is a matter of opinion and others may have better-informed opinions than I. My preference, however, would be to eliminate statements that are matters of opinion (or at least tag them as such).

. . . Heinlein was frequently interviewed during his later years by military historians on Captain King . . .

So far as I know, Heinlein was never "interviewed" at all, much less "frequently." He answered a (one) questionnaire by T.B. Buell, and wrote a huge supplemental set of responses to the questions (published in the Nonfiction 2 volume of the Virginia Edition, which is out now). If there were other inquiries, I am not aware of any -- and since I have read every piece of extant correspondence, I would have reason to be aware of such.

. . . Heinlein also served aboard the destroyer USS Roper (DD-147) in 1933 and 1934, reaching the rank of Lieutenant . . .

The dates of his service in Roper are wrong and should probably be 1932 and 1933. It's questionable whether Heinlein could actually be said to have "served aboard" Roper in 1934, as he was hospitalized late in 1933 and never returned to active duty. He may have been carried on Roper's T.O. into 1934 (about which I have no information), but in any case I question the language. Also, the implied relevance of service aboard Roper to achieving the Lieutenancy is misleading; the relationship of the promotion to the service in Roper is coincidental, something which is not evident from the language here. He was waiting for the promotion to come through at the time of his transfer to Roper in 1932. He had taken his exam in April 1932 (almost immediately after his second marriage), was transferred to Roper by orders dated 6/20/32 and received notification of the promotion in July. It would be less misleading to say something like, "During his five years serving in the line of the Navy, Heinlein attained the rank of Lieutenant (j.g.). In Mid-1932, he was transferred from Lexington to Roper, where he served until hospitalized with pulmonary tuberculosis at the end of 1933." [Possibly a clause about further gunnery training might be added.]

Also, the concluding sentence about his brother Lawrence is of questionable relevance in the first place, and, in the second place, it is not clear to me why this is significant enough to be mentioned of Lawrence without also mentioning his brother Ivar's service in Missouri National Guard, Navy and Army and teaching at West Point (or for that matter, Clare's service in WWII).

This particular passage has more objectionable errors and misleading statements than most in the entry and was chosen because it exemplifies the problem with the entry as a whole. Some of the errors are puzzling -- the 1931 date for his "assignment to Lexington" seems drawn from thin air, for example. I know of no documentary support at all for the statement, either directly or by an understandable misreading. Others are simply the result of very careless and inexact -- sloppy -- writing.

So I believe the suggestion that the article needs a reworking, and has needed it for some time, is well founded. Bill Patterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.62.93 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 10, 2011. There has been no comment on my earlier remarks. Having a brief break from finalizing Volume 2 in manuscript, I took a shot at correcting just the Navy section, including its pre-existing extranea. In addition to comments as above, I added to the beginning of the paragraph that Heinlein's special regard for the military reflected a long family tradition, which provided a context for the remarks about Gen. Lawrence Heinlein and additional cursory remarks about Ivar's service. However, I am now even more convinced that the details about his brothers' service are supererogatory. If no one undoes this edit without discussion, I may come in after people have had a chance to review it and remove the remarks about his brothers' service. Bill Patterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.62.93 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) October 20, 2011. I see the rewrite was removed without comment or discussion. Exactly how is this supposed to be done? Bill Patterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.62.93 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILITARISM

The charge of militarism against Heinlein (particularly WRT Starship Troopers) is common, yet there are clear indications that he was anything but.

In chap XII of Starship Troopers, it is made clear that while only veterans have the vote, serving soldiers do not. ("...why the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans?")

Much of Chap II is devoted to a limbless recruiting sergeant trying to discourage potential recruits from enlisting. It is also made clear that, although only federal service veterans are entitled to vote, federal service does not automatically equate to military service. A volunteer could spend their term of (non-military) federal service (in Chap II example) testing survival equipment on Titan - no glory, no uniform, no medals, just unpleasant and risky.

Heinlein's thesis in Starship Troopers is that citizenship in this society is more than a matter of chance and fate as regards place of birth. Instead, he offers an alternative system in which citizenship must be earned by serving the society. No person can be denied the chance to serve; the sole limit is if the individual cannot understand the oath of service. Citizenship is open to all in other words, yet most people on Earth chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity, feeling that the only benefit (the ability to vote) is not worth the trouble. There appears to be no loss of civil rights, etc for non-citizens.

Hilde27 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is pretty clearly refuted in this excellent essay by James Gifford http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf Unlike most others in this debate Gifford makes his argument via a close reading of the actual text, instead of apologetics or Heinlein's later statements in his non-fiction. Heinlein may have intended that the service not be strictly military (or changed his mind after writing the book) but Gifford's essay makes it clear that he failed to get that idea on the page, in fact several important details in the book repeatedly contradict his statements in Expanded Universe. Although Heinlein was free to 'correct' the text on this point as he did in several other of his books, he never did. It is a truism to not trust an author talking about their own work and this is an excellent example.

Bill Patterson 5 October 2011 The reference to "correcting" unclarities "as he did in several other of his books" is escaping me. Can you give an example of what you had in mind?

I think Gifford's reading fails because it does not take any elements of Heinlein's personal context into account in interpreting the passages. Heinlein was, after all, educated in the era of Wilsonian Progressivism, at a time when the attitudes of liberals and conservatives alike to the military and what meaning it had in the life of the nation was quite different than it is now. In Heinlein's corrective extra-textual statements, I believe he is indicating the missing context needed to interpret the statements, rather than, as Gifford holds, changing his position(s). Bill Patterson

Removal of uncited comments

Many of the comments just removed as unreferenced (which they were) were perfectly valid and (IMHO) true ones. I didn't write any of them, so I have no horse in this race. However, I think it's important only to rigorously remove uncited stuff only in bios of LIVING people. If we removed all the statements in WP in other types of articles, that have been uncited for more than a few months, there's hardly be half the encyclopedia left. It's a work in progress. Uncited reasonable statements are like red links. They don't have to be killed on sight, unless perhaps you're gunning for an good-class article rating-review. The general (unstated) policy is to tag these things and leave them, unless they are clearly outrageous or erroneous. That wasn't the case here. So we've go an overzealous editor, who has missed the point of WP. user:Yworo, nobody appointed you the wiki-police. Quit it! It's annoying to have good writing disappear. There's not a statement here that couldn't have had a cite found for it. SBHarris 20:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the removed material was in any way essential to the article. Any editor may remove uncited content. I only removed things that have been tagged for some time without anyone bothering to find citations. If you don't want material removed, find citations. If you want to restore it, find citations. In my opinion having citation tags all over the article is more annoying than the removal of what you call good writing. Good writing in an encyclopedia is sourced, and previous editors have expressed their opinion that the removed material needed citing. And desist from personal attacks such as calling me an "overzealous editor" or "the wiki-police". Yworo (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have phrased it thus: you're an editor who is being overzealous. To wit, you're doing it wrong. I've been here 5 years to your less than two, I have more edits, and (most importantly) I've done a LOT more writing, while you've been doing clean up, reversion, and deletion). So don't tell me how Wikipedia works. What any editor MAY do, is not what any editor SHOULD do.

I'm now going to wait for input from other editors here, who will doubtless tell you to "quit it" also. And if we need to go to arbitration for other people to tell you to quit behaving this way, we can do that. And we will. SBHarris 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a chill pill, dude. I improve articles in good faith in my way. I don't have to do it your way. Yworo (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to do it OUR way, meaning the community of people working on this article. Who we have yet to hear from, but I don't think you're going to like it. Enough said till we get some further opinions. SBHarris 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "wrong" to remove tagged uncited material. WP:V says this
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article."
And Jimbo has also said so,
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information..." [6].
So fine, take it to ArbCom if you happen to like boomarangs. Yworo (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, your civility could really use some work. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have supported the edit changes of user:Dlabtot (whom I've never heard of, BTW). The policy "How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article," means just that: it is to be decided by consensus, using the TALK page. Not simply done at will by a single editor.

    I have no idea why you're quoting Jimbo. These are not "random, speculative statements that somebody heard somewhere." Even if they were, Jimbo doesn't own WP, and does not set policy here. The WMF foundation board sets policy for foundation issues, which deletions in the Heinlein article certainly are not. Editorial matters in individual articles are decided by communities of editors writing that article. SBHarris 01:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not permitted to override policy. Verifiability is policy. Please provide citations for the material. The burden is on you as the restorer of the uncited material. I'll give you 24 hours before removing it again. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also blind reverted my other edits to the article, which were improvements. Please don't revert more than the edits you object to. Yworo (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not be confrontational about this. Deadlines and ultimatums are likely to be counterproductive, along with dubious warnings based on a misunderstanding of what civility entails. Criticism is not in itself uncivil, although - and I direct this as well towards Sbharris - characterizations of other editors should be avoided, along with the touting of supposed credentials - let's just try to have a pleasant discussion about writing this article.
Yes, verifiability is policy, but so is consensus. One does not trump the other. Nor could they trump ignore all rules, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia on which all policy is based.
Anyway back to the article. In hindsight my 'blind revert' as you call it, was a mistake. I don't have a problem with most of your edits. I would like to ask, when removing material because it has been tagged as uncited for some period of time, do you give any consideration to the question of whether the material is accurate and adds to the article, or do you simply use a bright line test? Dlabtot (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bright line. I try to consider if the material is highly significant to the subject. I don't think most of this is, but I'm willing to hear other opinions. If some of it is highly significant, why don't we try to find citations for it; and if not all of it is highly significant, why don't we delete some of it. Yworo (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because various people have different definitions of the meaning of "significant" much less "highly significant". On that note, I love sci-fi. I generally read 50-100 books a year. Heinlein was one of the reasons why. I see no reason to not include information even if it's not "highly" significant. And if it doesnt come with a cite, help find one.
One must always remember that the article is not being written for them - it's being written for a very diverse Wikipedia Community, and thus significance and the article-worthy nature of any information should be judged accordingly - as opposed to our own personal opinions on what qualifies for us. It's another reason why trying to reach a balanced consensus is important.
In that, I will comment on one last thing. The length of time someone has been on Wikipedia is irrelevant to how they can contribute in such a fashion - especially since each person, regardless of edit count, can bring something new to each topic. That too of course means to AGF on each others' proposed contributions in some form of civility. A proposed edit you think is garbage I might think is stellar - or vice versa. Reality is probably somewhere inbetween - or as Kirk said "Reality. Is probably. Somewhere... inbetween" ;-)
Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like RobertMfromLI, I'm not familiar with the 'highly significant' standard, nor do I think it a good one. Such an approach would result in a lot of stubs. However, as previously stated, after review, I don't object to your deletions. Dlabtot (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "highly significant" standard is a personal one. I will search for citations for material I think is critical to the article. I will not search for citations for material that is simply a "pet theory" from some editor too lazy to cite it that has gone uncited for months or years because the regular editors of the article are also too lazy to search for it and/or don't care. It has to do with effective use of my time. I have to believe that in general material which has gone uncited for so long by regular contributors who are obviously passionate about the subject is either unimportant or unverifiable. Yworo (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein Society Concordance as source for references

Editors in need of a source for missing references, particularly for use in plot summaries, should take advantage of the concordance at the Heinlein Society website. For example, here are three I just added to Glory Road:

— 67.101.7.45 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks most helpful. I take it this is a WP:RS reliable source per wiki standards?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inventions presaged

This section is weak. It cites no references. Some of this stuff is probably wrong. E.g., the list cites Space Cadet and Assignment in Eternity as presaging the cell phone. The Dick Tracy 2-Way Wrist Radio dates back to 1946, two years before Space Cadet. Assignment in Eternity is an anthology, and the article doesn't say which story is being referred to. Lists like this are lame. I'd suggest deleting the whole section.--75.83.69.196 (talk)

I agree with 75.83.69.196 and Sir Rhosis. It's been six months, and nobody has objected, so I'm going to go ahead and delete it.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just agreed with yourself, you're still using the same IP address as before.Not that I object to it's removal, but yeah, that was a pretty bad attempt to make a consensus look larger.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd forgotten that that was my own comment! But nobody, including you, has made any argument in favor of the dopey list. --75.83.69.196 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series

The article refers to three "series:" Future History, Lazarus Long, and World as Myth. I'd say this three-way classification was highly debatable, and in any case, is there a source that (a) refers to them as "series," and (b) classifies them this way? The juveniles are actually the only books I'd consider to be a "series" in even the weakest sense of the word, and they aren't part of the classification...why not?--75.83.69.196 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future History stories fit the generally-accepted notion of a series: they share a common setting and a number of overlapping characters. They were generally understood to be a series even while the early ones were appearing in Astounding in the 1940s, partly because Campbell alerted readers to the existence of the chart, which he eventually published. Reviewers and critics have consistently dealt with the various books as parts of a series. Examples are too numerous and too easy to find to bother with listing here. The Lazarus Long novels are part of the Future History series, which was eventually absorbed into the framework called "World as Myth." If anything needs changing, it's the statement that there are three "somewhat overlapping series"--the evolution of the relationships among the various books is evolutionary. By the way--the juveniles were a series in the publisher's sense of belonging to a "line," such as the Winston line of SF for young readers. RLetson (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson bio

It's pretty sad that there are virtually no references to the Patterson bio. The first footnote to it is 58.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the Patterson bio yet but agree that the extensive material unearthed should be reviewed and this page rewritten in light of any significant details. Rgelling (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted citation of politics

A "reference" that only mentions a magazine is of no utility if your reader has no index to said magazine. Just citing Reason magazine does not constitute a reference. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Encyclopedia article

Here's a useful source, including lots of critical material: http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/heinlein_robert_a --75.83.69.196 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein&oldid=477952995"