Lir is correct on this one, Jimmy. As long as he is showing respect for the efforts of others, his disagreements shouldn't be cause for banning. But that isn't what is happening here; Lir has decided to adopt the Wiki culture, and got slammed for it by you.
I agree; the quote about Nightfall being considered Asimov's greatest story NEEDS to be attributed; the 1968 consensus of certain Sci-Fi writers seems like sufficient attribution.
All this "many believe that" crap is very vague and un-encyclopedic. It makes it sound like we don't know much about the topics we are writing about.
No more double standards. Not for Lir, not for me, not for anyone.
Jonathan
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 10:17:06PM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Jimbo wrote me an email:
I think this one basically screwed your chances of being allowed back in, ever. Why don't you just give up and go away now?
Excuse me? I don't see how it is inappropriate to note that the statement should be attributed to a source. You asked for my opinion and you got it. If I had advocated adding to every presidents page:
George Washington is viewed by many to be the best president. Abraham Lincoln is viewed by many to be the best president
etcetc
Bush is viewed by many to be the best president.
It would be a bit redundant, no? As you said, "We could say the same thing in a number of articles, and it would be equally uncontroversially true in all of them." Does that merit inclusion in the article? Should we state that Iowa is the most beautiful state (to many), as is Georgia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, California, Texas, and New York? Should we go on to note that Pink Floyd is considered (by many) to be the best band, as is KISS and System of a Down. Should we note that the Blues Brothers is the best movie (as viewed by many) as is Aliens and Chicago?
"Erwin Rommel is considered by many to be the greatest general of modern times." hardly seems to be informative. Especially when the reader will find the same statement at the page for every single famous general.
I do not see why you are taking offense at my suggestion that a source be accredited whenever a pov statement is being made. I myself was earlier criticized for saying "Many people believe such and such" as somebody wanted to know WHO these many people are. Now that I agree with the earlier wikipedia consensus I am confronted by yet another contradictary wikipedia consensus. I do not see how it is a "troublesome" or {trollish" or "vindicative" or "immature" for me to try and discuss this with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day