Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive 6

message: Why are some of the lines (i.e. "pseudonyms") not being displayed in the infobox, despite being typed into the wikitext there? —ScouterSig 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Turned out that pseudonym has to be singular. Now fixed. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox troubles 

message: There. I gave you four citations. I have a bunch of his books that say Dean of Science Fiction Writers or Dean of American Science Fiction Writers on the cover, and it says that in half the bios on Heinlein. If 4 is too much, cut it down to whatever you want that satisfies you. I hope this is not just a case of messing with an editor for no real reason; the article already has a link to a website called "Robert A. Heinlein, Dean of Science Fiction Writers, tribute site" in the external links section! No real fan of RAH would question this.Coffeehog (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a case of messing with an editor at all.  This is a case of an editor adding in POV language that was unsourced.  A different editor removed it so someone must have been seen it as contentious.  I added the fact tag so that it wouldn't be removed for a period of time until a citation was provided.  Looking at the sources that were provided to source the statement, the first is not a secondary source. The second is good since it a respected science fiction organization calling him that.  The third times out for me, so I can not even look at it.  The fourth almost appears to be a blog site.  I think one source is probably sufficient for the info. I think the second one is probably the best one.  As a fan of RAH, I wasn't questioning the statement I was trying to stop an edit war from starting and trying to retain that information in the article.  Jons63 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've followed this discussion and agree whole-heartedly with Jons63 actions and assessments of the profferred sources.  I've edited the article to implement the best source, delete the other 3, and leave in the content.David in DC (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to hear it. I never said it was such a case, merely that I hoped it wasn't. If you want additional sources, I'm sure they can be found, but I have no problem with a single source. The title is very well known. Thanks for the cooperative editing.Coffeehog (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dean of Science Fiction Writers

message: An author featured article with no section devoted to literary criticism of the subject? Heinlein is one of the most significant SF writers of the 20th century, surely we can stretch to a paragraph or two? Skomorokh 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reliable/sourced literary criticism available then you are free to add a section along with references. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes yes, so fix it and all that. I was rather hoping on provoking someone else into doing it ;) Skomorokh 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary criticism 

message: It's a very good article; very illuminating. You seem to have covered almost all of his novels at least somewhere, in some manner, but there is no mention of my favorite: The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag. There's got to be room somewhere for mention of this quirky, almost surreal, wonderful little story (man hires a detective to find out what he does for a living as he can't remember; those who do know won't tell him but obviously have utter distaste for whatever it is). There's far more to the novella than is on the surface. --70.107.9.159 (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a novel. It's a novella and was never published by itself as a book. As I recall it was the lead story in one anthology by the same name, but that doesn't earn it a place in the Novels section.  And the story itself does have its own article. --Rpresser 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it was indeed published by itself as a book; I own two copies. I am also well aware it has its own article as I linked to it in my post.--70.107.9.159 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the only story in that anthology.  I remember there were several stories, such as (I think) "Our Fair City" and "The Man who Travelled in Elephants".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wehwalt, I'm sure you mean well, but your memory is not jibing with my reality. I am holding the book in my hand. Yes, it is relatively short. It is nevertheless a single publication of just the one tale bound and printed with no companion stories.--70.107.9.159 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing book

message: I haven't read Heinlein's work, but from the article's description of his writing about this subject, it sounds like his aim in writing about it wasn't to say "we shouldn't have incest taboos" or that incest isn't wrong, but was instead a more general, typical aim of the sexual revolution. It sounds to me like he was trying to communicate that if a person has random, sexual or apparently sexual feelings or thoughts about other people they are not "supposed" to according to conventional sexual mores, they shouldn't tear themselves up about it or feel like they are a horrible person, because the actual reasons we developed these taboos are mostly biological ones in the first place. Obviously, Heinlein omitted the more moralistic reasons about power and inequality. But he could have been doing this intentionally to persuade us that these relationships wouldn't be so wrong if the participants were something like emotional equals (therefore highlighting his point about the influence of genetics, and not simply morality, in our ancestors' founding of the incest taboo). 
Therefore, I think it would be better to add a sentence to this section of the article to change the tone of it, so it sounds less like Heinlein was advocating incest as a natural progression in human sexuality, and more like Heinlein was just trying to free people from guilt their religion may have imposed on them (for having feelings that are natural and that everyone probably fleetingly and inexplicably feels on some random occasion) although their actual sexual actions are totally in conformity with law and morality. 
I am not going to make the edit myself, since I don't know his work and can't really know if there is something else in his correspondence or work that tends to refute what I am saying, but from the way the article is written, I really doubt that Heinlein was trying to do more than free people from unnecessary guilt (i.e., he wasn't trying to promote new sexual practices and mores). With his arguments about genetics, etc., he may have done it in too heavy-handed a way that may have left it sounding to some like he was tyring to change society, but looking at the total man, I don't think it's fair to credit him with that kind of activism on this issue. Swan Mc (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia!  I gather you are a new editor, as were we all.  You make serious points about Heinlein.  It is, however, not for us to interpret him.  We are a tertiary source, we report what others have written.  If you go and find a source reflecting what you have said here, it may well be that it would be a good idea to insert language into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I deleted it for the reasons stated above.  We don't work on "just as likely".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual views / incest