| Revision as of 15:29, 11 October 2021 editSchazjmd (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,933 edits →"A2 negative": reply (CD)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:49, 6 June 2024 edit undoTheScotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,416 edits →Big Three -Vandalism |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=14:40, 11 Jun 2005 |
|
|action1date=14:40, 11 Jun 2005 |
| Line 16: |
Line 17: |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Competent man|Competent man (3rd nomination)|1 November 2023}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=C}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Heinlein, Robert A.|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=C |category=Langlit}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Fiction |class=C |importance=Top |type=Article}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid|a&e-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=no |class=C |a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Heinlein, Robert A.}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Children's Literature|class=c|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Libertarianism |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
{{To do}} |
|
{{Annual readership|days=90|expanded=true}} |
|
{{Annual readership|days=90|expanded=true}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 36: |
Line 37: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit Warring == |
|
== Movie adaptations lacking == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks, I've just noticed this article doesn't talk about the movie adaptations of Heinlein's writings. I don't know how many there are, but I know Predestination (2014) and Starship Troopers (1997) are of the lot. ] (]) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
Here are some things Misplaced Pages has to say about Edit Warring and reverts: |
|
|
|
:Destination Moon was the first one, as I recall. Heinlein has written about his experience as a technical consultant with that one. ] (]) 03:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Heinlein also shares screenwriting credits for Project Moonbase. |
|
|
:I've added these two to the new Movies section; are there other films for which Heinlein made direct contributions? The adaptations of his written works to film are in the separate Heinlein bibliography article. The new section links to the bibliography article, where I've added the missing IMDb links. ] (]) 22:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Military-controlled government == |
|
''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.''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The statement "Space Cadet describes a future scenario where a military-controlled global government enforces world peace." seems inaccurate. There is no suggestion that the government is controlled by the military (the Space Patrol). The government is never mentioned. The only accurate statement is that the Space Patrol has a duty, presumably to a government but that is only an inference, to enforce peace. I think this statement should be changed. ] (]) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
and... |
|
|
|
:The for that para says {{tq|"In his 1949 novel Space Cadet, Heinlein depicts a future where peace is preserved through a global government controlled by the military."}}. ] ] 21:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Zaslav is right, and the National Review article is wrong.-Ben Crowell <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::What source is Zaslav citing when making their assertion? —''']''' (]) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::His own reading comprehension, obviously. ] (]) 10:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So you agree that the description should not be changed, then, since a change would rely on ]? —''']''' (]) 11:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The source is dubious and as he pointed out, obviously wrong. ] (]) 08:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Again, what '']'' has presented an analysis of the novel counter to ''National Review''{{'}}s? —''']''' (]) 11:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Diane Parkin-Speer suggests that Heinlein's intent seems more to provoke the reader and to question sexual norms than to promote any particular sexual agenda" == |
|
''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a topic worth expounding on - I have no source but it seems that on a wide range of topics, not just sexual mores, RAH's incessant pontification via his protagonists could at least equally well be viewed as provocation (or perhaps just making the piece interesting and lively enough to sell) as it could be taken as a political act per se. The point seems germane as various groups like to claim RAH as their ideological champion. ] (]) 09:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Big Three -Vandalism == |
|
''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct.] (]) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
and... |
|
|
|
:'''' identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does '''', '''', and '''' (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). ] ] 15:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:See also: ] and ]) ] ] 15:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I finally got hold of a copy of ''Billion Year Spree''. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? ] ] 19:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
Obviously, there was no "big three". There were, of course, some science-fiction writers who were better known, more highly esteemed by critics or general audiences, or more commercially successful than others. I began reading science-fiction in the late sixties, and my impression then was that the three most important and best-known living science-fiction writers were Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury. This valuation may have been colored partly by seeing Bradbury more often on television and personally much prefering Bradbury to Heinlein; I'm not sure. I ranked Heinlein fourth in stature, but I liked Fred Hoyle, whom I ranked fifth in stature, much more. Around the time I turned thirteen I decided that the only science-fiction writer who ever really mattered was H.G. Wells. A decade and a half later I added Stanislaw Lem. A few worthy one-works forays into the field by various other writers aside, I've never since wavered. ] (]) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Original research and opinion in article== |
|
''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!)'' |
|
|
|
While generally a good article, with lots of details, the article does seem to include a lot of unsourced opinions about Heinlein's inspirations and evaluations of his work. All opinions need to be attributed to reliable sources (random fan websites do not count). I'm going to start cleaning it up. If you feel stronly about any of it, let's discuss it here. ] (]) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
''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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately Bill Patterson has passed but I'm honoured he responded to this discussion. I would prefer we like Gifford stick to the actual text of the book rather than claims of supra-text 'context' but I think the best solution is to refer and source the conflicting viewpoints in the entry itself and allow the reader to decide from the sources rather than decide for them as the current entry does. ] (]) 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==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.--] (]) |
|
|
*Agree. Can we put it to a discussion/vote? ] (]) 08:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
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.--] (]) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: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.--] (]) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, I'd forgotten that that was my own comment! But nobody, including you, has made any argument in favor of the dopey list. --] (]) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is terrible, Patterson was obviously an admirer of Heinlein but also a real scholar and historian, is there nothing that can be done to address those who continually attempt to insert their personal opinions into this article? ] (]) 08:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Was this ever followed up? Allowing the edits of a scholar on Heinlein of the calibre of Patterson is reprehensible. ] (]) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130414090543/http://blogcritics.org/books/article/heinlein-starship-troopersa-disastrous-film-adaptation/ to http://blogcritics.org/books/article/heinlein-starship-troopersa-disastrous-film-adaptation/ |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101101225339/http://original.caw.org/ to http://original.caw.org/ |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd prefer we remove the editorializing on either Franklin or Panshin. I think both books are excellent but an article on Heinlein is not the place to insert our personal opinions on their worth. ] (]) 07:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Better to remove all editorializing of this sort from the article about either Franklin or Panshin's books. ] (]) 08:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-06T05:26:40.941886 | Libertarianism in the United States Collage 2.jpg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 05:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sayings of Heinlein - section here or list article ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a number of fairly famous said by characters in his stories. Would it be better to have a mention here of that with just the more famous ones, or should it be a list article and go into the less common ones ? |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking of things like |
|
|
* There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. |
|
|
* Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. |
|
|
* Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. |
|
|
* There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. |
|
|
* No project is ever completed on time or within budget. |
|
|
* Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards. |
|
|
* Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers ] (]) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think you want ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "A2 negative" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an RS for Heinlein's blood being A2-negative? In a quick search, I could find ''only'' fringe libertarian blogs, and occasional science fiction bios copied from those or Misplaced Pages. Does anyone have an RS, even a good self-source, on this? - ] (]) 14:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've requested ''Robert A. Heinlein : in dialogue with his century. Volume 2, 1948-1988'' from the library, which should cover it. ] ] 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
Hi folks, I've just noticed this article doesn't talk about the movie adaptations of Heinlein's writings. I don't know how many there are, but I know Predestination (2014) and Starship Troopers (1997) are of the lot. MonsieurD (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The statement "Space Cadet describes a future scenario where a military-controlled global government enforces world peace." seems inaccurate. There is no suggestion that the government is controlled by the military (the Space Patrol). The government is never mentioned. The only accurate statement is that the Space Patrol has a duty, presumably to a government but that is only an inference, to enforce peace. I think this statement should be changed. Zaslav (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a topic worth expounding on - I have no source but it seems that on a wide range of topics, not just sexual mores, RAH's incessant pontification via his protagonists could at least equally well be viewed as provocation (or perhaps just making the piece interesting and lively enough to sell) as it could be taken as a political act per se. The point seems germane as various groups like to claim RAH as their ideological champion. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:1508:FC82:66CC:D167 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, there was no "big three". There were, of course, some science-fiction writers who were better known, more highly esteemed by critics or general audiences, or more commercially successful than others. I began reading science-fiction in the late sixties, and my impression then was that the three most important and best-known living science-fiction writers were Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury. This valuation may have been colored partly by seeing Bradbury more often on television and personally much prefering Bradbury to Heinlein; I'm not sure. I ranked Heinlein fourth in stature, but I liked Fred Hoyle, whom I ranked fifth in stature, much more. Around the time I turned thirteen I decided that the only science-fiction writer who ever really mattered was H.G. Wells. A decade and a half later I added Stanislaw Lem. A few worthy one-works forays into the field by various other writers aside, I've never since wavered. TheScotch (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
While generally a good article, with lots of details, the article does seem to include a lot of unsourced opinions about Heinlein's inspirations and evaluations of his work. All opinions need to be attributed to reliable sources (random fan websites do not count). I'm going to start cleaning it up. If you feel stronly about any of it, let's discuss it here. Ashmoo (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
