Talk:Robert A. Heinlein: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
What do we want to do about it here in this more civilized environment?[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:33, 5 March 2008 (CST) | What do we want to do about it here in this more civilized environment?[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:33, 5 March 2008 (CST) | ||
:If he's alive, ask him! If he's dead... hold a seance. *shrug* I do not know. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:35, 5 March 2008 (CST) | :If he's alive, ask him! If he's dead... hold a seance. *shrug* I do not know. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:35, 5 March 2008 (CST) | ||
Very simple indeed. You are a [[CZ:Policy on Topic Informants|Topic Informant]] for the RAH article. You write up the story of your interaction with RAH (wow!) and put it in the TI: namespace. I would recommend putting it on a subpage of [[TI:Hayford Peirce]]; perhaps [[TI:Hayford Peirce/Heinlein]] (but this page should be descriptively linked from [[TI:Hayford Peirce]]). Then, we (not you) interpret what you have written in the TI: namespace and, if it looks legit, we will add the new fact and footnote the TI: page. That, anyway, is my interpretation of how the Topic Informant policy is supposed to apply to this situation. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:39, 5 March 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 16:39, 5 March 2008
Hey, great! About time! (I was too lazy to do it myself....)
Here's a question that was discussed (and argued) over for months at various WP forums and articles:
I added to one of the RAH articles a brief statement that Robert told me personally (while we were drinking rose wine in Tahiti) that Moon Is a Harsh Mistress was his best book.
Cries of Original Research! Hoohah to the nth degree! Some people took my side. Some didn't. It was inserted, removed, reverted, etc. etc.
At first I couldn't understand how anyone could *possibly* remove it. Finally I grew to understand the WP view of Original Research, so I shrugged my shoulders and said the hell with it.
What do we want to do about it here in this more civilized environment?Hayford Peirce 15:33, 5 March 2008 (CST)
- If he's alive, ask him! If he's dead... hold a seance. *shrug* I do not know. --Robert W King 15:35, 5 March 2008 (CST)
Very simple indeed. You are a Topic Informant for the RAH article. You write up the story of your interaction with RAH (wow!) and put it in the TI: namespace. I would recommend putting it on a subpage of TI:Hayford Peirce; perhaps TI:Hayford Peirce/Heinlein (but this page should be descriptively linked from TI:Hayford Peirce). Then, we (not you) interpret what you have written in the TI: namespace and, if it looks legit, we will add the new fact and footnote the TI: page. That, anyway, is my interpretation of how the Topic Informant policy is supposed to apply to this situation. --Larry Sanger 15:39, 5 March 2008 (CST)