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