Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive 8

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)

• Agree. Can we put it to a discussion/vote? Sir Rhosis (talk) 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.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 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.--Crossmr (talk) 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. --75.83.69.196 (talk) 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? BS6 (talk) 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. BS6 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. BS6 (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert A. Heinlein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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. BS6 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Better to remove all editorializing of this sort from the article about either Franklin or Panshin's books. BS6 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Libertarianism in the United States Collage 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of fairly famous Heinlein sayings 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 Markbassett (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you want Wikiquote. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. Does anyone have an RS, even a good self-source, on this? - David Gerard (talk) 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. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Got the book. I found this: 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. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1977 newspaper article says his blood type is A-negative. Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

None of these types are rare. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:612E:A33A:FD87:5F14 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)