Sam Sloan wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:07:00 GMT, "Alan OBrien"
wrote:

I appreciate you sticking up for Schiller, but the paragraph you obkect to:

What I am objecting to is the following remarks by Camembert, "Many of
them have received scathing reviews: reviewing for the Chess Cafe,
Carsten Hansen said Schiller's tome on the Frankenstein-Dracula
Variation of the Vienna Game was "by far THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER
SEEN" [1], while Tony Miles' famous review of Unorthodox Chess
Openings for Kingpin consisted of two words: "Utter crap."

...is in fact entirely correct. I suppose you are saying that there should
be no mention of those two reviews. But for many of us that is what Schiller
is most famous for.


Yes. I am saying that those two quotes from negative reviews should
not be included in any encyclopedia article. It would be perfectly OK
to add External Links to those negative reviews, However, if you read
an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, would you expect to find the
words "THE WORST BOOK I HAVE EVER SEEN" and "Utter crap"?

If they are of use to the article writer, yes. Would you leave the
"Upstart crow" remarks out of the Shakespeare article because they are
uncomplimentary?

An encyclopedia article should deal in facts, not opinions. Calling a
Schiller book "Utter crap" is clearly an opinion. This comment should
be removed from Wikipedia.

The comment was the late Tony Miles's opinion of a Schiller book, but
his describing the book that way is a fact. If the author of the
article wishes to make the point that Schiller has a horrible
reputation as a writer, then quoting reviews is proper. Without a
citation to some source that helped the writer form an opinion, we are
left with Innes-style history, where every point is argued by force of
assertion.