Talk:Solution Unsatisfactory

Needs some improvement
This is a good article, but needs its text and formatting updated. I'll try to give it a go later tonight. Overall, the content is good, just needs a good edittting. :)

Wellspring 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good start, but it also requires cites, as noted. Cordially, --Drieux 08:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just an anonymous reader here - I believe the date in the first paragraph of the article needs to be checked for accuracy: the internet speculative fiction database lists this story as first appearing in the May, 1941 issue, not 1940 as stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.196.196 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Who disputes the Neutrality?
On top of the article the following was placed: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." But whoever placed this banner wrote nothing (0) here. Can you explain yourself and what exactly do you dispute? Thank you. Adam Keller


 * Adam, I added that. The new text you added is comprehensive, but it is not neutral.  It takes a position on the story's imporance and role without being balanced.  Pleae read about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you refer especially to where I wrote "Thus, Heinlein was denied sufficient credit for what deserves to be counted as one of his major achievements" which I think how Heinlein's predictions in this story should be counted but I suppose it really could be considered not neutral. Would it solve the problem if I change that to "Thus, Heinlein was denied sufficient credit for a prediction of the development of nuclear arms and the post-war Nuclear Age, which not only predicted accurately many details but more importantly set out the main dilemmas involved in nuclear arms, years before most people became aware of them". I think that is objective enough, and it leaves people with the possibility of deciding for themselves how to evaluate it. Adam Keller.


 * I don't think that is the only problematic area. For that sentence specificly, I'd say that any claim of denied credit has to be citing an outside source (see Wikipedia's policy on original research) and should hopefully be balanced with an argument against Heinlein's deserving of credit.  You're still writing your opinion in your modified sentence.  And who is to say what "sufficient" credit is?  Very POV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the Wikipedia policy about original research, I have read it first when I just started to be involved in Wikipedia. What it says is that original research is uaccpetable but "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" and that "This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

That is precisely what I did here, I was relying primarily on the Heinlein story itself which is the primary source par excellence in this context, on some other Heinlein stories and books and articles, plus the Wikipedia articles on the Manhattan Project and on some people involved like Lise Meitner and Enrico Fermi.

I can give off hand one clear example of the denied credit, which is that the Wikipedia article on Heinlein, otherwise quite comprehensive, does not mention at all the predictions which Heinlein made in this story. This is in fact what caused me to write this account in the first place. But I don't know if I can cite that as "an outside source", all the more since it is going to change - I intend myself to insert a paragraph into the Heinlein article mentioning the nuclear predictions (I will keep in mind not to write there anything which can be conceived as non-neutral or original research). I think it is needed there. This is by the way not the only example, I encountered more than once before accounts of Heinlein's work which either did not mention at all or mentioned only in one or two sentences this story and its predictions, and I can't really understand why.

Anyway, would it solve the problem if I take away all reference to "sufficient credit" and replace it with something like:

"The early part of Heinlein's career is especially notable for his originating in the early 1940s the concept of a future history - i.e. many stories and books laid in the same consistent future - which was later taken up by other writers. Some accounts of his life and work omit to mention, or mention only very briefly, the story "Solution Unsatisfactory" written in the same period. It does not belong in the frame of the Future History, but does contain predictions of the development of nuclear arms and the post-war Nuclear Age, which not only predicted accurately many details but more importantly set out the main dilemmas involved in nuclear arms - all written in 1940, when most people were not aware of the very existence of such an issue".

I looked through this text several times, and can't see in it anything which is not objectively verifyable.

Adam Keller


 * Adam, this paragraph would be fine with me if you could provide one additional detail: cite an author or critique of an author who used the "future history" concept and acknowledged Heinlein as the originator. BTW, please fix the last sentence, it is a run-on.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That's Easy enough. "The early part of Heinlein's career is especially notable for his originating in the early 1940s the concept of a future history - i.e. many stories and books laid in the same consistent future - which was later taken up by other writers such as Poul Andeson and Jerry Pournelle, who freely acknowleged that Heinlin had done it first. Some accounts of his life and work omit to mention, or mention only very briefly, the story "Solution Unsatisfactory" written in the same period. It does not belong in the frame of the Future History, but does contain remarkable predictions of the development of nuclear arms and the post-war Nuclear Age, many of which were proved correct by the events of the following five years. Not only did Heinlein get many details right, but more importantly he accurately set out what were to become the main dilemmas involved in nuclear arms. Heinlein wrote it out in 1940, when most people were not aware of the very existence of such an issue".

Adam Keller

What is still disputed?
Can you either specify what is still disputed or take away that banner? Thank you. Adam Keller(Adam Keller 16:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

Banner removed
A week has passed since I wrote the above, with no response, so I am now removing the banner. If anyone wants to put it again, fine - but please specify here what you object to. Thanks, Adam Keller

Inaccuracy in text
"As in all later Heinlein books and stories featuring a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (for example The Door into Summer), the US comes out victorious, battered but still powerful."

Neither the Soviets nor the Americans are victorious or powerful in the primary timeline of Farnham's Freehold.

I'm new at this Wiki stuff so I'm just bringing it up here for hopefully someone else to fix. Mitheral 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requires rewrite
OK the article is I think way too long now-- nearly as long as the story itself. Further, many opinions are expressed in the article which do not have corresponding citations. These opinions are widely held, I happen to hold many of them myself and I'm sure given an afternoon's research we can document them, but as it stands now they're unsourced. That has to be fixed.

Adam, it doesn't look like anyone ever challenged your point about original research above. What WP:ORmeans is that you can collect and distill articles, saying "X says this, but Y says that". You can't draw specific content conclusions of your own, though. This isn't quibbling. To make a chemistry analogy, you can mix sources all you want, but the moment there's a reaction, you're doing original research.

I used to have a collection of science fiction anthologies from the late 40's through early 70's. Including a couple which specifically make the exact same points about this story. Unfortunately, they were destroyed in a hurricane, or I'd run into my bedroom and add the sources myself. I totally agree that this story is pivotal in science fiction, and somehow has been forgotten by Heinlein fans and editors alike.

On another note, the article is a wall of text and is IMO completely unreadable. Calling it out into sections should fix that. I'll do some surgery tomorrow. :)

Wellspring 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question on a single point.
I think many criticisms of the article in this talk page above, are fair. However, what both intrigues me and raises alarm bells in my mind, is the question that has specifically to do with Lise Meitner as a model for Karst. Is there any proof of this? In fact, how plausible is that even. How famous was Lise Meitner in November of 1940? Or is there some way that Heinlein in specific might have been aware of her? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)