| Revision as of 21:52, 13 August 2022 editDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers803,489 editsNo edit summary← 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 |
| (26 intermediate revisions by 17 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 Politics|class=C|importance=low|libertarianism=yes |libertarianism-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Libertarianism |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Missouri|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
{{To do}} |
|
{{Annual readership|days=90|expanded=true}} |
|
{{Annual readership|days=90|expanded=true}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 37: |
Line 36: |
|
|archive = Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
:Got the book. I found this: {{tq|Since Robert had an uncommon blood type (universal recipient—Ginny had the even rarer universal donor type), it was almost certain that his life had been saved by the efforts of the National Rare Blood Club he had come across while researching ''I Will Fear No Evil''.}} Web search says universal recipient is AB positive. I'll have to read the whole thing to see if there are any other mentions. ] ] 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:A 1977 says his blood type is A-negative. ] ] 17:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::None of these types are rare. ] (]) 13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Movie adaptations lacking == |
|
== Movie adaptations lacking == |
| Line 98: |
Line 48: |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
: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) |
|
: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" == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Big Three -Vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct.] (]) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''' 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== |
|
|
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) |
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.
