[WikiEN-l] Asimov-still POV

Thu Feb 13 09:08:27 UTC 2003

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
>
>>The article currently reads as above, the latter part "and is
>>thought by many to be the finest science fiction short story ever
>>written." needs to either be removed or credited to some source.
>>
>
>I don't agree.  It's perfectly fine as written.  It could be improved,
>of course, by crediting it to a source, but it's an uncontroversial
>comment as it stands.
>
>>We can all think of several science-fiction stories which instantly
>>qualify for "and is thought by many to be the finest science fiction
>>short story ever written".
>>
>
>That's true, but so what?  We could say the same thing in a number of
>articles, and it would be equally uncontroversially true in all of
>them.
>
>It is not POV, so long as it is actually true that many people do
>believe it.  "Many" is contextually determined here, so don't try to
>play funny tricks with that.
>
>>The article remains POV as it contains a POV statement which has
>>been given no source. In the Erwin Rommel article I could say, "Erwin
>>Rommel is considered to be the greatest general ever".
>>
>
>Notice how you've dropped a *key* phrase, i.e. "by many".
>
>It is perfectly fine to say "Erwin Rommel is considered by many to be
>the greatest general of modern times."  It's much better to say who
>the 'many' are, and to give a cite that involves some kind of actual
>counting.  But neither are _required_ if it is in fact widely so
>thought.
>
I dod not take part in the Asimov debate when it was hot, and I just noe 
skimmed through the debate on the talk page,  I also looked at the 
"Bewildering Stories" stories link.  The point in dispute seems to have 
as much to do with the antipathy which some people have for Lir as 
anything about the apparent matter in dispute.  People start getting 
pissed off not because of what is said, but because of who said it. 
 "Bewildering stories is horribly misquoted.  What it says is:

> Asimov met editor Frederik Pohl, who discussed Asimov's rejections and 
> later printed a number of stories in Astonishing Stories and 
> Super-Science Stories (Clute and Edwards 56; Asimov, "Letters" 12). 
> These stories led to the publication of some of the most famous 
> science-fiction stories of all time: the positronic robot stories, the 
> Foundation stories, and "Nightfall."

I searched the page to be certain that this passage includes the only 
use of "the most famous" in the entire article.  It does not single out 
"Nightfall" alone but cites it as one of three items in a list.  The 
issue of the most famous Asimov story is a mug's game.  It ranks right 
up there with the question whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is the 
better -- to use an example presented to children when trying to explain 
critical thinking..  We have a subjective determination which in our 
parlance is inherently POV; that's often the case when superlatives are 
at issue.  Citing a source, or making an indefinite attribution to 
"some" or "many" merely creates a Neutred POV instead of a Neutral one. 
 In many cases of unnecessary controversy these subjective comments are 
often best unsaid.  Asimov's stature will not be diminished by omitting 
to say that a particular writing of his is most famous.

I confess that I place myself on the more liberal end of the spectrum 
when it comes  to banning and other punishment issues,  In the context 
of the Asimov talk page alone I find Vera to be better behaved than some 
of his opponents.  He may have been a little insistent with his 
interpretation of NPOV, but most of us have done that on various 
occasions.  Personal characterizations came from others.

Eclecticology