Talk:The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Race and racism

Added paragraph on race and racism in Moon orthogonal 11:16, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I wish that whoever deleted my observation of last month that Heinlein himself considered this his best novel would leave my reversion in place. Does he doubt that Heinlein said it? Does he doubt that I knew Heinlein? What does he want for verification -- a tape recording of the lunch discussion itself? I don't have that, but I do have a photograph of Mr. and Mrs. Heinlein sitting beside me on the couch in my library a few hours later, just before they took my wife and me for dinner on their cruise ship, the Amsterdam....
I wonder how many other people who have contributed to the basic Heinlein article, and to this particular article, actually knew Heinlein? Very few, I imagine. I would think that information that actually came from Heinlein's mouth would be deemed of enough interest to include for others to read.
WP:NOR. — Phil Welch 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not original research, it's simply evidence that Peirce happened to get straight from Heinlein's mouth rather than through written channels.--Bcrowell 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
i'd say that although that's interesting, it does count as original research. the same way that an editor on wikipedia shouldn't cite their own webpage or interview for an article. Feelingscarfy 13:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
In essence he is citing his own interview for an article. In addition, it can't be verified at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability alone precludes using that material. — Phil Welch 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I couln't figure out how to start a new section "Brass Cannon" to I put this here.
The flag is wrong. Professor de la Paz wanted: "black field speckled with stars, bar sinister in blood [red], a proud and jaunty brass cannon over all, and below it our motto: TANSTAAFL!".
The flag depicted on the page is bar dexter, not bar sinister. The bar should flow top right to bottom left.
If someone could tell me how to start a new section or use the discussion page I'd be grateful. Don't just point me to the How To pages in Wiki. I looked around quite a bit and those pages assume the reader knows the basic step by step and I don't. I'll check back here.


Is it stricly true that Mannie was arrested for miscegation, I seem to remember that the arrest was for bigamy but that the judge was driven (actually manipulated) to issue the warrant because of his feelings on race. User:Ianj

That's my recollection. Hayford Peirce 16:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It happens at the end of Chapter 18. Exact quote: "For bigamy. For polygamy. For open immorality and publicly inciting others to same." —Lowellian (talk) 11:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, see the beginning of the next chapter. The judge did it because of race. I've added a note about that to this article, and to a footnote in the Heinlein article.--Bcrowell 19:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heinlein's best book

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that Fred Pohl, or Bob Silverberg, or Ben Bova, or Jack Vance, all of whom I know, and who knew Heinlein themselves, or any number of other science-fiction types, had written a memoir, or even a book review in Analog or Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and had said in passing: "When I was having lunch with Bob Heinlein the other day, he said that he throught that Harsh Mistress was his best book." That would be written, and from a big-time writer, and hence verifiable, right? But would it mean that it was true? That Heinlein had actually said that? How, short of actually being at that lunch yourself, could you possibly know? You're simply taking Pohl's, or Silverberg's word for it. Okay. Now let's say that I write my memoirs someday. Why not? Lots of people who have led less interesting lives than I have written them. And got them published. And I'm a published writer to begin with. And I was a friend of Robert Heinlein. Certainly in my memoirs I would have a page or two about him. And I might well mention the name of the book that he thought was his best one. Then my memoir gets published. So that makes my teeny tiny little edit to a Wikipedia article 100% impregnable? Because it had been published in my memoirs instead of just being contributed out of the blue? Robert Heinlein has been dead for 17 years now. How many of his contemporaries are still alive? How many of them are contributing to Wikipedia? How many of them are trying edit the Heinlein articles and make them as valid (and interesting) as possible? And people like you are trying to keep this stuff out of the articles! If you revert this again, I will ask for a formal discuss of this issue, with a vote on it as to whether my modest Heinlein contribution should be included or not. Hayford Peirce 04:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If you were to write and publish such a memoir and *someone else* were to add it to the article—yes, that would be legitimate. I'm sorry if it seems inefficient but Wikipedia has policies about this, including Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. "People like me" are trying to maintain Wikipedia policy because that's what the community has agreed upon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are secondary and tertiary source material. If friends and contemporaries of Robert Heinlein want to share what they remember of him, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. It is the place for others to take information from those memoirs and primary sources and compile it into an encyclopedia. — Phil Welch 05:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not directly verifiable whether Heinlein considered this his best work. But so long as the reference is in place, that's not what the article says - it says that Hayford Pierce claims that Heinlein told him this his best work. This statement is perfectly verifiable, so long as it's established that User:Hayford Peirce is in fact Hayford Peirce, which I don't think anyone is challenging. —Cryptic (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Verifiability aside, it's still original research/primary source material. — Phil Welch 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, there's no rule that it be someone else who adds the material to the article, only that it have been published elsewhere. Hayford Pierce would be free to add material from his own publications. --Trovatore 05:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well let's see it published elsewhere then. — Phil Welch 07:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just the same, assuming Heinlein thought "Harsh Mistress" was his best work, I think he was wrong. There's lots of others I'd nominate ahead of it -- say, Double Star or The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag. --Trovatore 05:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this is an academic question best answered by referring to academic analysis. The fact that Heinlein considered his best book, is not directly related to whether or not it is. I personally feel it is a draw between Stranger in a Strange Land and Harsh Mistress. If this article is going to attempt to validate the books considerable merit it should do so by referring to the books stature in literature, as verified by academic work. Incidentally, the book is quite a masterpiece and your interest in this article is a credit to you in my book. WovenLore (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wyoh's Hatred to the Authority

Having read the novel in English just a week ago (in Czech, I know it nearly by heart - my favourite book No. 1), I am quite sure that the sentence "Wyoming, aka Wyoh, hates the Authority because she was sterilized when her mother, pregnant with her, was kept out on the Lunar surface during a solar storm after being shipped to Luna as a convict." is not true. Wyoming Knott was actually born Earthside (in Wyoming, where her parents were relocated in connection with the reconstruction of the Greater New York) and travelled to Luna with her parents as a child. She was exposed to radiation during a solar storm when kept on the Lunar surface before disembarking. This caused that Wyoming's first baby was genetically damaged ("a monster") and had to be eliminated. Wyoming than decided to have a sterilization and divorced her first husbands.

Vanamond a.k.a. anom. user: / user_talk: 7 March 2006 12:43 (UTC)

Above 'attributed by' note: FrankB 13:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I would also like to suggest that it might be good to explain the word "stilyagi" at least a bit, possibly with a reference to an external link - for example <>. As a Czech who grew up in the Czechoslovakia during the late Communist era, this word certainly isn't a part of my vocabulary (and with its rather strange transcription from Russian into English, I had actually thought it's a Turkish word and it confused me, the first several times I read the book - but that was long before the Internet came to Central Europe). While it is true that its general meaning is clear from the book - non-conformist young males from lower social stratas - I think that to know some basic facts about real Russian stilyagi opens some connotations and "hidden" context. Also explains RAH's description of stilyagis' clothing.

Vanamond a.k.a. anom. user: / user_talk: 7 March 2006 18:52 (UTC)

Above 'attributed by' note: FrankB 13:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Language & Narration

I think this can be addressed by combining the discussion on the Lunar dialect with the disscussion of Mannie as the Narrator in the plot outline. A possible paragraph is as follows

The novel is narrated in the first person by the main character Manuel Garcia O'Kelly "Mannie" Davis. Throughout the book the narrator primarily uses an invented Lunar dialect made up of English words influenced by Russian grammer--often dropping the definite article before a noun and/or dropping a pronouns (in particular possesory pronouns) (e.g. "Always cut cards"); additionally the narrator will occasionally use repeated verbs to create a noun (e.g. such as using "talk-talk" for meeting). The Lunar dialect also contains a number of Russian words (such as tovarisch) and invented slang-words. Not all the characters use the Lunar dialect and where other characters speak standard English (such as Bernado de la Paz) the narrator will record it as such. The overall effect of the use of this invented dialect is to draw the reader deeper into the story. Tdewey 04:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! -Shahar Goldin (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Bernardo de la Paz

Merge. The character doesn't appear an any other books and is not otherwise notable. —Keenan Pepper 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Agree.--Wehwalt 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag has been up for over a month with all votes in favor of merging, so I am going to WP:BOLD and do the merge now. KleenupKrew 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned in schools comment

For the line "The book was banned by many schools due to the details given on how to stage an insurrection." in the Cultural influence section, would a citation be needed for this (such as a news article or school statement)? WikiWizard 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I would tend to agree. I have never heard that. Although the formula seems a bit tricky. "First, get your self-aware computer . . . "--Wehwalt 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Female-dominated Luna

Excellent article, but I was surprised to see that there was no mention of the female-dominated nature of Lunar society at the time of the rebellion, caused by the low female-to-male population ratio.

It seems to me that portrayals of such societies are rare enough to warrant a mention. --PMaranci 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Europe, Earth and the War

The European super-state in the book is several times named as Mitteleuropa, implying a German-dominated union. India is also mentioned, apparently as a power, and with the note that it practises "Planned Famines".

I find it odd that nowhere in the article does it mention that the Luna Republic winds up bombarding Earth with artificial meteorites! Was that somehow not seem an important plot development, or was it seen as a spoiler?

The book is one of the few that depicts operating in a gravity field lower than you're accustomed to as a substantial disadvantage. Most science-fiction of the period routinely describes coming from a higher gravity field as an unmitigated advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2006

I note that in the section titled Earth politics and background history the last par says “In all, most of Earth seems so have been split into several large nations, most joined together by the Federated Nations. They include … Brazil (its descriptions hint that it may be all of South America)”. I don’t think this is true for two reasons, the first, is because the hint really only implies a Brazilian type nation with a new name and second is because when Proff and Mannie are before the Luna Authority Committee hearings, they are on the end of a number of attacks from an Argentinean Senator, implying that Argentina is still independent. For this reason I think the bracketed section should be deleted and the actual name for the Brazilian type nation inserted (which escapes my memory).

It might also be relevant to add other individual nations that are mentioned in the book including Belgium, Netherlands and Great Brittan.

I would also suggest, relating to the second par, that the book says that northern Australia and not eastern Australia has become part of Great China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Effects of Gravity

No mention is made in this article of how (contrary to reality) people from Earth become irreversibly dependent on lunar gravity in a matter of months. This particular trait uniquely motivates the characters, since they cannot just go back to live on Earth if conditions on the Moon become harsh enough. Everyone on the Moon is trapped there for life. 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree this is important enough to note in the article. The vast majority of Loonies are free (I think the figure was over 90%), having either been born there or having served out their sentence, and when Mannie and Prof are attempting negotiation on Earth, the Lunar Authority proposes that any citizen of Luna is welcome to return to live on Earth if they do not like the way the Authority runs things. This notion seems a reasonable compromise to those on Earth - who have little concept of the physicalities of living long term in low gravity - while the Loonies consider it palpable nonsense because they know the cannot live long if returned to Earth. Therefore, they are effectively committed to living in Luna forever and having the "freedom" to leave is an empty promise, making them literally slaves to the Authority's whims.

Mannie and Prof emphasize this during their stay on Earth, using their weakness and easy fatigue as political statements. (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic 03/13/2012

Assessment for NovelsWikiProject

I put this article in the project before embarking on a rewrite, preserving existing contributions as much as possible, relocated to their proper place in the NovelsWikiProject header scheme. I think we've stabilized the article now, thanks going to User:Wehwalt for adding detail (without going over the top!). It's a long article but I think the novel rates it. It certainly changed my life. Re-assessing as "B-class", although I think it's "GA" already (that's Good Article) Djdaedalus 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss Deletions!

Rydra Wong I am perfectly willing to discuss any edits I make, and if you dispute their value, refer them to a third party, or ask for consensus. But please cease simply reverting my edits without discussion in complete violation of wikipedia policy. I have no idea why you reverted - your failure to discuss the reversions leave me wondering whether you did so because you consider them original research, or whatever. So please stop, and discuss reverting before simply doing so. Unless you discuss your reversion, I am simply reverting back. Stillstudying 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Second warning on deletion without discussion

Rydra Wong This is the second time I have had to post this: I am perfectly willing to discuss any edits I make, and if you dispute their value, refer them to a third party, or ask for consensus. But please cease simply reverting my edits without discussion in complete violation of wikipedia policy. I have no idea why you reverted - your failure to discuss the reversions leave me wondering whether you did so because you consider them original research, or whatever. So please stop, and discuss reverting before simply doing so. Unless you discuss your reversion, I am simply reverting back. I will also ask other editors to go look at this matter, and post their feelings. Stillstudying 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Max, I have looked at the language in question, and referenced it and it is appropriate in the article. old windy bear 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this intended to substitute for actually reading the novel?

Does the plot need to be so lengthily summarized, and the characters so lengthily described? If that's standard practice on Wikipedia, so be it, but I think it's a mistake.

Actually, I found the Wikipedia plot summary of sufficient help during the course of reading the novel to recommend it being expanded in choice areas. I'm an honest man, and will admit that I found some areas of the plot unclear, and an explanation of some areas of it led to a more complete comprehension of the novel. Due to the idiosyncratic nature of the narration, I maintain that some areas of the story are veiled in obscurity to the general reader, and thus a concise yet fairly copious synopsis is desirable. Eam91 February 22 2008 2.55pm, GMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eam91 (talkcontribs) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rocks on Cheyenne Mountain

The article states that the rocks thrown at the mountain were not for any military purpose... implying that the damage was slight. However, at one point Mike tells Manny, "that mountain isn't there any more" .. alluding to the tremendous power of the rock impacts. A vanished granite mountain most certainly has a very strong military deterrent effect. The image of destroying an entire mountain from space was one of the strongest in the novel about the value of having the 'high ground' in a fight.

Well, then the article is wrong. Cheyenne Mountain was North America's space defense headquarters and thus a very legitimate target. I'd be interested in the side effects of displacing an entire mountain. For example, I doubt if much was left of Colorado Springs when all was said and done.--Wehwalt 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you have to allow for the implicit, though not explicit, possibility that in the particular timeline of the Heinlein-Multiverse, the US had no defense headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain. Do remember Heinleins World as Fiction conception. Some of the later works did infact express some of the differences in history between the timelines, but I couldn't tell offhand how far the MIAHM timeline differs from ours or at what point in time it diverges from ours. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 19:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Tor edition (no date but fairly recent hardover), p. 331: "For a century North American Space Defense Command had been buried in a mountain south of Colorado Springs, Colorado . . . During Wet Firecracker War, Cheyenne Mountain took a direct hit; space defense command post survived . . . North American Space Defense Command was to receive full Lunar treatment, twelve rock missiles on first pass . . . Disrupt their communications and bash in command post if pounding could do it."
p. 345 "I said, 'Yammer--Minister, are you suggesting that their space defense HQ is not a military target?'"
p. 356 " . . . for it seemed unlikely that command post in Cheyenne Mountain was still effective. Perhaps we had not cracked their hole in the ground (don't know how deep down it was) but I'll bet that neither men nor computers were still tracking."
p. 357 "It's not there anymore."--Wehwalt 14:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your points are well taken (at least by me). What occurs to me as a followup question, would be what the definition of "military purpose" is, and was the Colorado headquarters a unique resource, or just one of many capable to execute its function (merely being the premiere site capable of such use). It is perhaps arguable that the effect sought was a propaganda effect primarily, but against a "legitimate military target" specifically because attacking a civilian target would not have the desired nuanced propaganda effect sought. Remember that Mike calculated the odds based on reading all the works of political and historical scientists that he could access via the MIAHM equivalent of the Internet, so the calculations would have synthesized many disciplines by default. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is presented as their space defense HQ . . . but Manny makes it clear, a prominent reason was propaganda. Turning a mountain into a molehill quite legitimately because of war is going to play well as propaganda. The Loonies are trying to get Earth to give up, not beat them down militarily, that is why they dump rocks into harbors and rivers by major cities all across North America. After staring (I hope not too closely) at, say, the results of a rock into the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, a Marylander can go inside and watch on video what's left of the famous mountain defense headquarters. Pretty soon, they decided it wasn't worth fighting for.--Wehwalt 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Film Adaptation

I distinctly remember seeing a film when I was younger made in the late 60's or early 70's (I must have seen it in that late 70's, or early 80's). It started with a cartoon like credit sequence showing the Moon being populated and developed. Part of the rest of the film included changing the orbit of an asteroid to strike something on the Moon. Maybe it wasn't an adaptation of the book, just inspired by it, but I can't find a ref to it anywhere ! Anyone know of this film ? Should it be in the article ? 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- in the last 12 months the Tim Minnear article has been updated to state that he is actually finished working on the screenplay, and it is now being handed around... So the film version might actually happen (although, like the video game Deus Ex, a big part of me hopes it DOESN'T, since the original in both cases is so perfect that I don't want to see it "Hollywooded" although at the same time it would be good to attract new audiences to the classic -- again, in both cases :) ) -- (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I nominate that Rational Anarchism be merged into this main article, as Rational Anarchism does not exist as a school of anarchist thought outside of this work of fiction. The article provides no citations, as all pertinent information is derived from the source material. Only two external links are provided, both of which are examination the topic within the context of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. I propose that Rational Anarchism shall be placed in Politics and Society, a subsection of the Major Themes section, as it is small enough to fit into the larger article without disrupting neighboring sections.--Cast (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, three days and no one responds, so I will presume no one cares. I've carried out the merge.--Cast (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, so I can't say whether this is a good representation of the character's views, but 'Rational Anarchism' sounds an awful lot like Autarchism. How would you feel about redirecting Rational Anarchism to Autarchism? (I also posted a question on the Autarchism talk page --Culix (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Late in the novel, a reference is made to the possibility of humans flying on the moon, to which Mannie comments that he thought the speaker had "tripped his safeties". This is a reference to Heinlein's short story, "The Menace From Earth", involving flying on the moon with artificial wings, which include "safeties".

I found no reference to safeties in my copy of "The Menace From Earth" in face the word safe only appeared once and it was in reference to the safety of the streets.

James Shoemaker 10-23-2008

Then you should be bold and remove it from the article. Wonder what Heinlein was talking about with safeties, then . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure what the procedures on that was. editing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In this usage, I believe Heinlein's meaning is similar to "blown his circuits"; i.e. Mannie thinks the idea of flying on the moon is crazy. (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Manuel born in 2040

I think there's a reference to Manuel's birthdate in Chapter 1, giving it 2040. Albmont (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is ever mentioned. Manuel says (on the Earth visit, in summer 2076) when told he looks about 22, say he has been married longer than that. It IS mentioned that he was opted as a husband into the Davis household at age 14. Assuming "longer" means that he has been married at least 23 years, and that he's telling the truth, then Manuel's latest possible birth date is 2039.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mannie may have exaggerated slightly when he says he has been married longer than 22 years. In any case, in the later Heinlein novel "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" Mannie's daughter Hazel give his birth year as 2040. (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Certainly, but the later Heinlein works so go off the reservation that I prefer to consider the earlier stuff in isolation except where they are a part of a series like "Future History".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


"In 1974 the songwriter Jimmy Webb used the phrase as a song title although its lyric eschewed the sociological aspects of the novel." This is a misunderstanding. He used the phrase, but not really to allude to Heinlein. Instead, it alludes to the old assosication of the moon with depression and mood swings, compare "moon sickness", "lunatic" etc. Webb only borrowed a catchy phrase. (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Film Adaptation

The link to the article in source #7 is busted. (Can't seem to log in with my account, downloads the damn php file. - user:Phrost -- (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Anarchy or libertarianism

The categorization of this appears off. The only real anarchy in this book comes from Fernando's self-description. This is more a libertarian novel. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The pre-yammerhead government Luna is the ultimate Libertarian paradise. Feel free to change, unless there's objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll run with it at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The undisputable fact is that while the book discusses, at length, 'rational anarchism', it make no mention of libertarianism. I believe that there is actually no mention of libertarianism anywhere in any of his works. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Explicit, perhaps not. Implicit, as noted by countless critics and scholars? Clearly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"Countless"? -- obviously that is not true. However I will forgive your hyperbole. At any rate, the opinions of critics and scholars are just that - opinion, not fact. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I would challenge you to name ONE critic or scholar who does not self-identify as a libertarian, who has described the book as 'libertarian'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would it have to be a non-libertarian scholar who does so? It's hard to say for many academics, but even one quick look in Google Books turned up this and this which are academic-level pieces that assert Heinlein's writing as having a libertarian lean by authors who are not overtly libertarian themselves. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
One must respect a challenge met. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure, heh! Are you okay with re-integrating the parts you pulled with some of these and other sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRD. Dlabtot (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"citation needed"

Under the section brass cannon, there's the text "Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon — and went into business for himself." Someone tagged it with "citation needed". Come on, this is a quote from the book itself, as the text also implies - or do we really have include the book itself as a citation? Hoemaco (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

song of same title

why is Jimmy Webb's song of the same title not referenced in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot tag

Hello. I removed the length tag. I feel that the plot was an appropriate length, and plan to do some more work on it as well. There had been no discussion about it so I felt that it was justified. Please let me know if there are any problems. CapBasics359 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


I was looking to fix the Citation Needed tag for the Rational Anarchist and inserted this: Does anyone have any problems with including this?? I mean, it's all from the book, so I don't really know if there is any need to actually go that much into it. CapBasics359 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)