Asimov began contributing stories to science fiction magazines in 1939; his short story "Nightfall" (1941) is described in Bewildering Stories, issue 8, as one of "the most famous science-fiction stories of all time" [1], and is thought by many to be the finest science fiction short story ever written.
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. 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" My personal vote would be for "Cold Equations" and Im sure "many" agree with me that Cold Equations is the best science-fiction short story ever written. Im sure many feel that "You See But Do Not Observe" is the best science-fiction short story, as Im sure many feel that something by Stephen King might qualify. Perhaps it was Ray Bradbury that wrote the best science fiction short story, or was it Jules Verne or perhaps MaryJanice Davidson or Raylan Conley??
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". So are Mannstein, Patton, Caeasar, Napoleon, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Montgomery, etc etc etc. The earlier version was even more POV:
Asimov began contributing stories to science fiction magazines in 1939; his most famous single story is "Nightfall" (1941).
Is not, "Bewildering Stories, issue 8" enough? Do we need to say, "Not only does Bewildering Stories issue 8 argue that Nightfall is ONE of the greatest, but be assured, by wikipedia and our ardent NPOV, that Nightfall is considered by many to actually be THE greatest science fiction short story EVER.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
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.
--Jimbo
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
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Maybe, but over the past 50 years, the idea that Nightfall is his most famous has become part of the general background cultural noise. So we have to report that. If it's based on a mistake, let's report that too.
Lir, would you also have a problem with this on [[The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)]]:
Penned in 1723 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1723, they remain among the most popular concertos in all music http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music.
Googling reveals that there is an identifiable source for the designation of Nightfall as the best science fiction short story, a vote in 1968 by the Science Fiction Writers of America.
Obviously there could be other votes and lists past and future.
Fred
From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:54:47 +0000 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Asimov-still POV
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Maybe, but over the past 50 years, the idea that Nightfall is his most famous has become part of the general background cultural noise. So we have to report that. If it's based on a mistake, let's report that too.
Lir, would you also have a problem with this on [[The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)]]:
Penned in 1723 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1723, they remain among the most popular concertos in all music http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Googling reveals that there is an identifiable source for the designation of Nightfall as the best science fiction short story, a vote in 1968 by the Science Fiction Writers of America.
Obviously there could be other votes and lists past and future.
Fred
From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Maybe, but over the past 50 years, the idea that Nightfall is his most famous has become part of the general background cultural noise. So we have to report that. If it's based on a mistake, let's report that too.
If Fred's reference had been used and cited in the first place the whole edit war might never have happened. We would have known that the original comment was more than one individual's idolatry.
Eclecticology
tarquin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
Maybe, but over the past 50 years, the idea that Nightfall is his most famous has become part of the general background cultural noise. So we have to report that. If it's based on a mistake, let's report that too.
Hmmm. Maybe Tarquin should feel inspired to write about "[[background cultural nois]]"
Eclecticology.
|From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:18:10 -0800 | |Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
<snip isaac asimov, retain rommel>
| |> 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. | |--Jimbo |_______________________________________________
The judgment of one noted military historian on Rommel:
"We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General."
This from Winston Churchill. He was speaking in Parliament, the wartime prime minister, facing a censure vote for not having defeated Rommel, and yet managed to express a high opinion of Rommel. I think it is fairly safe for Wikipedia to do the same 60 years later.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:30:46 -0800 (PST), Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] lapollutionestsimauvaise=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Is not, "Bewildering Stories, issue 8" enough? Do we need to say, "Not only does Bewildering Stories issue 8 argue that Nightfall is ONE of the greatest, but be assured, by wikipedia and our ardent NPOV, that Nightfall is considered by many to actually be THE greatest science fiction short story EVER.
The words "ever" and "never" are absolutes and should have no place in Wikipedia except in a direct quotoation. After all, best ever also implies that no better story will be written in the future, somthing that we simply do not know. This hyperbole is commonly repeated, however, particularly at the closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games :-( "Best yet" and "best to date" are possible alternatives, although once again "best" is to subjective to use without a particular reference.
In this case the word best was used by a specific group, the Science Fiction Writers of America at a specific time, 1968. Thus stated, the possibility of other groups making a selection of the best at another time is implied. Never the less, in this particular matter, for the classic period, a state of truth as opposed to opinion is approached.
Fred
From: Richard Grevers dramatic@xtra.co.nz Organization: Dramatic Design Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:50:49 +1300 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Asimov-still POV
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:30:46 -0800 (PST), Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] lapollutionestsimauvaise=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Is not, "Bewildering Stories, issue 8" enough? Do we need to say, "Not only does Bewildering Stories issue 8 argue that Nightfall is ONE of the greatest, but be assured, by wikipedia and our ardent NPOV, that Nightfall is considered by many to actually be THE greatest science fiction short story EVER.
The words "ever" and "never" are absolutes and should have no place in Wikipedia except in a direct quotoation. After all, best ever also implies that no better story will be written in the future, somthing that we simply do not know. This hyperbole is commonly repeated, however, particularly at the closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games :-( "Best yet" and "best to date" are possible alternatives, although once again "best" is to subjective to use without a particular reference. -- Richard Grevers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l