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