Talk:Science fiction/Archive 3

message: I'm taking issue with the introduction... it's quite partisan, not encyclopedia-like, miles away from the wikipedia neutrality policy.  I'm also afraid the pseudo "definition" cuts off a good portion of the best works, like Dune.  Something from the "Definitions" discussion above would make a much better introduction.  Yeah Heinlein is fine when writing sci-fi itself, although he comes much lower on my list than a few people who don't even make his definition, such as Herbert and Marion Zimmer Bradley;  but when writing about sci-fi, he's poor at best. LaloMartins 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible introduction 

message: There are still points to tackle on "Splash Section for Suggestions that meet the To-do List". [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still stuff on the Splash Section above. 

message: I know this is a paraphrase of Heinlein, but that introductory material seems confrontational, and almost POV: "Most people believe in miracles or astrology or ghosts or whatever mush-headed nonsense helps them get through the day. Science fiction writers are more hard-headed than that" This should be a direct quote, as it is full of loaded terms. It should also be later in the article; positioned where it is, it seems like Heinlein's words are somehow canonical. Mateo LeFou 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently heavily under discussion.  See above. --Richard Clegg 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Heck? 

message: I propose that all of the links that are on the page as of today be deleted. Most are not especially notable (not bad, just not notable) example of pages about or containing or listing or reviewing science fiction, quite possibly added by their owners (pages like this are a magnet for people seeking to promote their own site). The Worldcon site is unnecesary duplication, since the page already contains a link to Worldcon in its body. The Science Fiction Foundation is an important organisation but a link to it doesn't obviously enhance the article. Comments? Please refer to Wikipedia:External links if you aren't familiar with its recommendations. Notinasnaid 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that it is a little more work, but why not delete the links that you consider unimportant, instead of deleting all of them?  Just off the top of my head, I think there should be links to Locus, the Worldcon, Ellen Datlow's blog on amazon, and sfwa.  (I haven't looked to see how many of those are there now.) If you delected, say 2/3 s of the current links, I doubt there would be much objection.  Most Wiki articles have some links.  Rick Norwood 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you justify a link to the Worldcon when the article links to Worldcon (which, properly, contains that external link)? SFWA sounds a good idea, ditto Locus as the leading news source (still?). Notinasnaid 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is giving up on an article to remove links and there are a lot of extraneous links which should certainly be pruned.  At the moment it is full of fancruft.  The objection here isn't to links per se but to the sheer amount of them.  It is a shame there was a full scale revert rather than just adding back the few that are most valuable.  --Richard Clegg 19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment, I don't want to jump in with a debate yet until more time for people to post opinions. Following the acceptable link posted I see five points under Occasionally acceptable links. Point 1 is for a different kind of article, and points 4-5 are qualifiers. That leaves only point 2 ("one web directory listing) and point 3 ("one major fansite"). I point this out to add to consideration of whether the little collection of links we have is acceptable under policies. Notinasnaid 19:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much easier to delete objectionable links than it is to add back important links. Rick Norwood 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Notinasnaid that nothing in the links collection needs to be there.  The only criterion in Wikipedia:External links that seems likely to apply to this article is the last one: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."  Even there I think more than one (representative) site is unnecessary.  This article is not an entire encyclopedia of sf in itself; it's just the main article from which many others will be linked.  The Worldcon link belongs in the Worldcon article; most of the others have nothing to add beyond what should be in the article itself.  They're not objectionable sites, but they don't fit the Wikipedia definition of links that should be included.  Mike Christie 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that all of the "links" that I think are essential are included under "sf portals", so I now have changed my mind, and agree with Mike Christie and Notinasnaid. Rick Norwood 20:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to have consensus here so I deleted them.  --Richard Clegg 21:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'm going to make another attempt at the definition, based on RLetson's version above.  Much as I love Theodore Sturgeon, I don't think anyone was really satisfied by his definition. Rick Norwood 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the Sturgeon "definition" is best seen in the context of a long-running discussion/debate about SF and that it was a reply to the "SF is fiction about science" or "SF teaches us about science" schools of thought. It's obviously inadequate as a full definition, but in the context of that virtual debate, it made a point that is still worth making. I think we're working our way toward a reasonable opening section here. RLetson 19:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another stab at the definition. 

message: I think the link to this site shoold either be moved or erased.  It is very slow, and in the time I looked through it, I didn't see a real bibliography. Kdammers 10:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I also think all the non english sites should be removed unless they actually contribute something to the article its self - Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the bibs should stay, since this is important and hard-to-track down stuff.  And they're generally easy to "read" even for English-only readers. Kdammers 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian fan site 

message: Much science fiction that is not alternative history is based on the science and assumptions of the time in which it was written - eg that Venus is habitable. Could a list be made of the more notable of such failed futures (I have started something off on Failed history. Jackiespeel 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed science fiction

message: Just an FYI regarding the OED sf citation project, which has just been linked to for "speculative fiction".  I'm one of the editors on that page, along with Malcolm Farmer, Jeff Prucher and Jesse Sheidlower.  Jesse works for the OED, and the project is hosted on OED servers, but the material on those pages is part of a volunteer project to gather information for use by the OED.  The detailed list of citations is in fact drawn from (one of) the OED's internal database of citations, so this is certainly "official" in that sense; however, the definitions as written on those pages were written by the volunteers -- Jeff, Malcolm and me.  As I recall we often referred to the OED to see if they had entries, but otherwise we just did our best to define the terms.  We probably did OK, since we've been working with the OED for years and are getting familiar with the definitions, but Malcolm and I are not lexicographers.  (Jeff is about to become one; he's publishing a book called "Brave New Words" based on this (and other) material.)
So these are not official OED definitions.  I flatter myself that the OED lexicographers will take our draft definitions seriously when they draft entries for the real thing, but some of these words will never make it into the OED.  The bottom line is that reference to these pages is fine so long as you understand what you're getting.  Mike Christie 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of OED SF citation project links 

message: The insertion of a rather POV mention of Voltaire's Micromégas in the Precursors section reminds me that there's no need to reinvent any scholarship here--the ancestors of modern SF have been extensively mapped, starting with Marjorie Hope Nicholson's Voyages to the Moon and J.O. Bailey's Pilgrims Through Space and Time, so all that's really needed is a brief recap of that scholarship (which mentions Voltaire but keeps him in the context of other 17th and 18th century proto-SF cosmic voyages). My own immediate contribution will be to fix the erroneous attribution (in the Purpose section) of a Bailey quotation to Eric Rabkin. (FWIW, it's on p. 11 of Pilgrims.)RLetson 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit later: Come to think of it, I wonder whether that whole "Purpose of Science Fiction" section is really needed--SF has the same kinds of purposes and functions as any other literary tradition, with the understanding that its subject matter distinguishes it from, say, the mystery or romance or sea story or whatever. The "Purpose" section as it stands is a bit of a grab-bag with no real center, and it seems to me to have its roots in the sort of defensive talk that comes from having to answer skeptical or semi-hostile "Why do you read that stuff?" queries. A consideration of SF's relationship to real science or whether it attempts to predict the future might be useful, since there are common assumptions about those matters, but I wonder whether those topics might be better addressed elsewhere--or in a section on "common assumptions about SF" that would deal with the whole range of attitudes toward the tradition, especially insider and outsider attitudes--but without the POVish defensiveness that such a treatment might fall into. RLetson 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it´s funny that a genre so troubled with attacks of lack of literary quality would bother to call the insertion of Voltaire as a clear precursor to be POV. I remember reading Micromégas for the first time. I felt a very strange feeling because I thought such a big name in literature would never write a sci fi short story (well that was POV on my part, I wasn´t used to read Heinlein back when I was 14 years old). He wrote it to criticize the astronomers of his time, because he was enlighted and hist thoughts permeated with science from Newton and others. If that´s not Sci Fi, I don´t know what Sci Fi is... The Micromégas entry states it was a precursor of Sci-Fi. The Voltaire article does it too. Why the Sci Fi article would deny it? I can´t see the logic or intelligence behind this behaviour. See [] and [] for the online texts in the english language (I can tell you that the translation is not on par with the original in French). The Editor´s Note seems to agree with Voltaire pioneering as do I. Loudenvier 20:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Curiously, I agree boldly with you about the Purpose section. It is, humm..., rather "speculative". Seems like editorialization, reads like original research. Loudenvier 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are COMPLETELY ... right. It´s time to stop to write what you feel is right, but rather find reliable sources that tells what other "scholars" have said. I will find some sources to cite to back up my claims (or I myself will be removing them). Regards. Loudenvier 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire Precursors section seems to have been written in a hurry! It´s a confused mess of citations of some authors and works, and displays a comparison with Bran Stroker that really seems out of place and is unecessary (after all, this is not an disambiguation section). As you´ve said the precursors of SF have already been researched by scholars, so why not cite those works and bring this section to life? I think it´s a really important section: Cyrano de Bergerac is not even mentioned!!! (as you´ve pointed out). My emphasis on Voltaire is because Voltaire is considered one of the most influential figures of his time, I think that it would be very interesting (to say the least) to show that Sci-Fi can be traced back to him (but not solely to him, that´s the fault of my wording). I really think that the introduction should mention those notorious ancient authors that wrote Sci-fi one way or another, withouth entering in much detail. The precursors section, which could become an article itself (the sci-fi article is too big by wikipedia standards), should be rewritten, with more emphasis on each authors contribution to the genre. We need to avoid the temptation to censor what is being contributed by others, and start to try to incorporate the ideas for the better of the article, rephrasing or moving content. I have no problem seeing my edits polymorphed beyond recognition, but I dislike too much to see my ideas fading...  :-) Loudenvier 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it will be very easy to revamp this section because History of science fiction have it already laid out for us! Loudenvier 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for scholarship again

message: I think it´s wrong to state that Well's pioneered Time Travel, because Mark Twain had done it before. I´ve tried to fix this issue two times, but my edits are being reverted. I don´t want to start a revert war because I´m a very civilized wikipedian. So I think it´s best to discuss it here on the talk page. Why A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is not even mentioned as the de facto precursor of the time travel theme? Why my edits were reverted? If they lack quality (which is a common issue in my edits due to the fact that I´m not a native english speaker), they should have been copy-edit not thrown away. Regards Loudenvier 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! The term "my edits" is meaningless in wikipedia, but you know what I meant. :-) Loudenvier 20:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you examine the history log, you will see that the Twain references were removed from a section dealing with motifs developed by Verne and Wells. I would think that the place for a treatment who-invented-time-travel would be in a section on time travel or one on the roots/evolution of various SF motifs. RLetson 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that the section says that Wells pioneered the Time Travel theme. It´s a wrong statement because a known, accurately dated work exists. Why incurr in a wronging when doing the right thing would be easy? I know The Time Machine was incredibly more influential for the genre but that´s not the case here, or is that? If it is the case then the term pioneered could be changed to something like was very influential. Loudenvier 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nicholls, 1979, p605, gives 1771 as the earliest date of a Time Travel piece (forwards, by sleeping). "The Importance of [The Time Machine] is that it gave the time traveller mobility and control over his movements" (ibid, p606). Notinasnaid 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the question (one sure to lead to bitter wrangling) of whether Connecticut Yankee is SF or fantasy--it's a notoriously tricky book to categorize, since the means of time travel (lightning strike) is arbitrary and near-magical, while the Yankee's behavior in the past (introduction of anachronistic ideas and technologies) is a clear precursor of dozens of later, by-convention-genuine SF, including Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall which deliberately parallels Twain but is considered SF. (See, I said it was tricky.) RLetson 21:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time Travel was central to Wells story and, at first sight, "collateral" to Twain´s. Twain´s dealed with future technology affecting the past in strange ways. It can be said that the Time Travelling wasn´t mechanical but by other means (since it happened in an unconcious state). Time Travel mechanics/physics was not the subject of Twain´s story, but the effects of time travelling was. That´s why it seems to me that Twain´s work is genuine sci-fi. I don´t know if Nicholls' reference can be considered sci fi since I did not read the story he refers to. The fact that Wells time traveller have mobility and that Twains traveller was anchored to a time age is the subject of time travelling mechanics/physics which was only dealed with by Wells work. I did never diminished Wells importance, that´s why I´d never removed Time Travel altogheter from the section. Loudenvier 21:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps then Nicholls reference deserves to be cited on the section, and also Twain work, but keeping clear that Time Travel as a SF theme was more influenced by Wells works above any others, clarifying the meaning of pioneering. Loudenvier 21:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Coudl you provide evidence that Mark Twain was the first to write of time travel stories? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will have to dig deeper in this, but is seems to be so. Anyway the discussion here was if Wells did indeed pioneered Time Travel, but since Twain´s story dates back then he is to be credited. It seems tha Nicholls refered to an earlier Time Travel story, but we do not know (yet) if that was a sci fi story.  I´m more inclined now to cite them all on this section for clarificatin purposes. Loudenvier 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Travel 

message: These links need to be cut down, there are way to many. Only the needed links should be kept ie: some for books, some for tv and only those that provide the best content related to the article.
Also i think foreign links should be removed as if you want links in those languages then use that versions wikipedia for those links. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Sfacets is using this sentence from a reference source to justify his statement that Speculative Fiction is derived from the initials SF:
"The term 'speculative fiction' has been used somewhat confusedly, both as an alternative and more dignified interpretation of the initials SF"
To interpret the initials "SF" as "Speculative Fiction" is not the same as deriving the term "speculative fiction" from the initials SF. It simply means that some people see "SF" and think "Speculative Fiction" rather than "Science Fiction". DK's article says nothing about the genesis of the term.
The Speculative Fiction article, however, does say something about the genesis of the term. It is not derived from the initials "SF". 
Sfacets, if you want to insert some theory involving terms that share the initials "SF", then let's hear the whole theory here in the talk section. Better yet, flesh it out in the Speculative Fiction article. KennyLucius 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has cited his sources, so his text should stay until you can proove otherwise. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative Fiction genesis 

message: So utterly disgust I was to find the image of collection of classic science-fiction replaced by the likes Star Trek: Voyager TV tie-in PocketBooks, that I just had to find where the root of the change developed and revert it immediately.... I'm not saying that I'm not a Trekkie, it's just that this image fulfills the definition much better than simply a collection of PocketBooks that limits itself to just one show. 
Please see  if you disagee, which I hope you won't since I feel very strongly on my side of all this. DrWho42 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your actions. Notinasnaid 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous image has no source info/author or fair use rationale, thus reverted. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then surely we can do better than this one. Any suggestions for what to include in the stack?Notinasnaid 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Star Trek. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No sooner said than done. This new picture can certainly be improved, but it includes some of the definitive science fiction novels, anthologies, magazines (this includes Asimov's Nightfall but sadly that is too small to see), TV (Star Trek), film (The First Men in The Moon), fandom (1979 Worldcon program) and even an SF-related computer game. Also, the fair use rationale is stronger since the only covers shown are of books discussed by name. I don't much care for fair use, but I think that will do. If we eliminate fair use, the stack is left only with the early Verne edition. Notinasnaid 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh that is a much better picture i like this one much more over the other two, definitley keep this one it has a bit of everything. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the composition is terrible, but the nice version of the picture (on a background, with shadow) made the titles all too small to read... Notinasnaid 09:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not Star Trek.. We need a stack of classic science-fiction, not something based on a TV show spin-off.. Like something including Heinlein, Clarke, Bester, Asimov, all those famous literary sci-fi guys. Frankly, this garners more ground in the field whereas Star Trek: Voyager mere encompasses the 1990s Star Trek fandom, which seems to be much fragmented since Enterprise. DrWho42 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern scifi relates to modern people as well. An image shouldnt just encompass the past etc. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed image... 

message: I'm not so sure about using the 2004 series of the Hitchhiker's Guide CD release (the Tertiary Phase cover currently included) - wouldn't it make more sense to use either the collector's box set image of the first two series (1978/1980) or the collector's tin from 2005 with all FIVE series included? --JohnDBuell 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the rationale can be changed, as long as there is still a minimum of articles that such an image is used in. What's really bothersome are users that link to such fair use images in their userspace pages, which DOES violate fair use. Anyway, I would still recommend that someone get a copy of the 2005 collector's tin, photograph that, and use it. None of the Hitchhiker's Guide related articles are using it (and no, I don't have a copy of the tin, so I can't offer a photograph). --JohnDBuell 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Please stop the mini-war that is going on at the moment; Okay, first thing: Leave the current revision as it was before disputed edits where made.
Two: Compromise; This can be done in discussing changes here and coming up with something to add a concensous agrees on. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I seem to have got a little overexcited. I don't have any objection to the definition per se, but the following points. (1) The editor used sci-fi as a synonym for science fiction. This is a loaded term as per Science fiction#terminolgy. There have already been huge debates over using SF as a synonym; this is simply unnnecessary and avoidable. (2) The previous definitions were carefully sourced. We should ask no less for this new definition. If the editor has created it, and not published it in a journal, then I don't think it belongs in the article because a sourced alternative is available. Notinasnaid 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct, we have had the acronym discussion before and the correct term to use in this article is science fiction, and i agree with you that sci-fi or sf shouldnt be used whole-heartedly in the article when the title is science fiction. Secondly: They where sourced; Yes, should the new definition follow priot criteria? Yes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over text 

message: There should be a paragraph in the article about the decline of SF: when, how and why. It is a matter of fact that SF is now essentially dead but fantasy reigns everywhere. This has something to do with the relative failure of post-WWII science (no new amazing generic theories like relativity and QM was). 195.70.32.136 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions differ, since more is published in the publishing category than ever before. (I'm not saying the view doesn't exist; both could usefully be represented.) Above all: find a reputable source which said it. Notinasnaid 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Clute has been arguing for quite a while that science fiction is exhausted, running on old ideas and models, on nostalgia, and maybe a bit of self-parody. (See various places in his review collections Strokes, Look at the Evidence, and Scores.) It's a rather abstract argument rooted in a notion of genre and of the function of SF that I only partly buy into. But I don't think that this is the kind of observation the anonymous User is making. Fantasy "reigning everywhere"? If there are more fantasy titles on the shelves (the figures are probably in the Locus annual roundup issue), that does not mean that SF is "essentially dead"--just that there's a category that outsells it. As far as raw numbers go, I can't keep up with all the good, new, honest-to-goodness SF that comes out every month. As for the notion that a failure of real science might be a reason for a decline in SF, I invite the User to look back a decade or so at the work of Greg Bear, Greg Benford, Paul McAuley, Ken MacLeod, Charles Sheffield, Vernor Vinge, Nancy Kress, Paul Preuss, Bruce Sterling, Wil McCarthy, William Gibson, Frederik Pohl, Kim Stanley Robinson. . . . Well, the list goes on. All these writers have exploited ideas and findings from real experimental or speculative science. (Benford, McAuley, Sheffield, and McCarthy are/were working scientists; Vinge is a mathematician.) RLetson 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game over SF 

message: "Another source of dislike for the term sci-fi term is the tendency for the mainstream to use it as a collective term that lumps together not only true science fiction but fantasy, horror, comic books, cult films, special effects action films, only marginally related genres such as anime and gaming, and completely unrelated fields such as UFOlogy."
Comic books, cult films, anime, and gaming are all mediums of entertainment that can fit in the "true" science fiction genre.
:Yes, it is rather a POV (rather a snobbish, really) statement. It might be best to generate the entire sci-fi discussion from sourced quotes as it is inherently POV. Notinasnaid 07:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I've taken the liberty of rewriting and expanding the lead. Much of what was there was rather cryptic and did not much reflect what we will find in most of the sources as we try to get better referencing for the article. However, I've retained as much of it as I could, while expanding and clarifying. I believe that what is there now is more accurate, closer to the accounts that we will find in the scholarly literature (which we'll ultimately have to source), and easier to understand. Some of what I've retained is still a bit OR-ish, but it makes sense so I kept it for now. Also, we will need to develop a lead of about this kind of length as we try to get the article to FA status over time. I don't mind if some of the material is worked on and even shifted to other parts of the article. Conversely I don't mind other material being shifted into the lead as we get a better idea of the final structure of the article. The material is all up for grabs, but I would appreciate it being given careful consideration. Although I haven't provided sources at this stage, that also applied to the lead as I found it (and I have to say modestly that I do have a good knowledge of the field of sf scholarship). I'm pretty sure that most sf scholars would consider what I've written to be passably accurate, so it's not terribly controversial - we could probably find quotes from Robert Scholes, Darko Suvin, etc., to back it up. I think the article as a whole probably needs some restructuring, and for some of its material to be farmed out elsewhere, but I don't want to go too far today, or even this week, without giving other contributors a chance to absorb what I'm doing. Metamagician3000 10:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The new introduction is too long and, in trying to say everything, says a number of things that just aren't true.  (Also, I've never been fond of the current illustration -- like the introduction it seems crowded and confused.)
Anyone working on this article needs to be aware that the article has been rewritten many times, so many times that rather than improving it has been demoted from the "good article" status it once enjoyed.
A few specific comments: "(often abbreviated as SF, S.F., sf, or sci-fi)".  We don't need this long list of abbreviations in the first sentence.
"is a genre of fiction that typically depicts the effects of technological innovations, or imagines entire future societies that differ from the present as a result of ongoing technological change."  This suggests that these two alternatives are typical of most sf.  They certainly do not describe the sf of Hugo winning author Connie Willis, to name just one example.  
"In some cases, the narrative is set in the author's own society, or another contemporaneous one. In other cases, the work may be set in the relatively near or far future."  This suggests that these are the only alternatives.  Much sf is set in the present day, but in a society other than the author's own.  Examples include Zena Henderson's stories of the People and many Kim Stanley Robinson stories.  Also, much sf is set in the past, or in alternate worlds.
"Sometimes the locale for the action is so distant in space or time from that of the author and original readership, and so comprehensively different from any historical human society, as to suggest creation of an artificial world or universe."  This is a very special case that hardly needs to be mentioned in the introduction.
"Irrespective of the distance between the narrative's setting and the author's own world and society, the key literary device of science fiction is what Darko Suvin calls the novum, i.e. some novelty of technology, science, or history."  This is more to the point, though the introductory clause seems superfluous.  On the other hand, this definition does not apply to most sf in film or television.
"One persistent feature of science fiction is that whatever novelties it introduces should be well-defined or well-behaved according to the natural laws that operate within the imagined world where the action takes place."  How about A. E. van Vogt and Ray Bradbury, who often ignore both internal logic and scientific laws?
"This is frequently contrasted to the device of magic employed in fantasy literature, which is considered an allied genre."  How about "The Imcomplete Enchanter" or "The Magic Goes Away", where the magic is rational and internally consistant?
"The rationalization of technological novelties in science fiction does not necessarily conform to the limitations implied by any scientific theory current at the time of publication. Indeed, there is sometimes little more than a pretence of deference to science of any kind, and the technologies of science fiction's alien or future societies may appear little different from magic."  If so (and this seems too complicated a topic for the introduction) where does that leave us?
I could go on, but you get the idea.  I think any attempt at an essay on this subject, by anyone, no matter how knowledgable, is not going to work as an introduction to this article.  I think we must stick to referenced material. Rick Norwood 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some problems with the new introduction 

message: I also agree.  Many of the minor points made in the expanded lead destroy what the previous tighter lead accomplished.  Many of these minor points belong in the sections below the lead.  I am in favor of reverting to the previous single paragraph lead, and moving any new material to bottom sections.  NoraBG 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead an do that, before Metamagician300 puts too much more work into his introduction.  I do think the intro needs a rewrite, but this is an article that has been rewritten so many times that changes need to be slow and carefully referenced, not free lance opinion pieces. Rick Norwood 18:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problems with expanded introduction

message: Let's just say sci-fi is an area where a plethora of sweaty nerds will want to put their two cents.  We all acknowledge that there are many niche areas in sci-fi that stretch the definition.  An elaborate leader is asking for trouble because it becames too nuanced and cannot possibly address all of nerdoms' pet views while remaining concise and useful.  The one paragraph leader is much tighter and sticks to the main facts, while being generic enough to act as an umbrella.   Metamagician's previous details can be incorporated in the lower sections. NoraBG 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perils in Nerd-dom

message: That's a pretty contrived, precious leader, in which there's so much qualification, plus use of the word "contrived" twice, that I think it is inaccessible for the average reader, Joe-Sixpack, who's just looking up to see what "science fiction" means.  This leader is better suited for an academic journal.  I've been reading S.F. for 50 years now, and writing it off and on for 30, and studying the criticism of S.F., and I've never before run across the use of the word "contrivance" as a part of an explanation of what it is. James Blish must be gnashing his metaphysical teeth somewhere.... Hayford Peirce 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, i do not like the oddurance of the word "Contrived" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still do think that the leader should be as short as possible. It doesn't need to try to explain SF. It only needs to tell the user what are the most common aspects of SF. The definitions I've posted before from the dictionaries are good examples of what I'm trying to say. I'm a very well versed portuguese writer, but my english is very poor so I will not step in and write it myself... On the other hand I'm a good judge of the quality of a text being it in english or portuguese :-). The current intro is a poor one, but it's still better than the too long proposed by Metamagician (by the way, nice nickname!). I think that we could do the same that was done to the Heavy Metal article: propose a few leading passages here in the talk page and build up some consensus... The final product will probably be a lot better than the current one and hopefully avoid controversity. Regards Loudenvier 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrived leader

message: The problem of course is that SF is a very broad church, and that is is almost impossible to find a common defining thread.  In biological terms, this is known as "family resemblance".  All works of the SF genre bare some resemblance to other works within the genre, but that does not imply a single point of commonality.  Anyway, I have scowered tbooks and the web, and ths is the simplest definition that I can find that seems to cover the huge spread of SF: "A work belongs in the genre of science fiction if its narrative world is at least somewhat different from our own, and if that difference is apparent against the background of an organized body of knowledge.", from Eric Rabkin in The Fantastic In Literature (Princeton University Press, 1976).  I don;t like the exact wording much, but I do like the basic simple point, ie "Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world at least somewhat different from our own."  Using that as a starting point, I propose something like Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world significantly different from our own present or historical reality.  I really don't believe that you can find a more detailed definition without excluding great slabs of what we would all agree to be SF.  Follow up a simple, general definition like this with examples of sub-genre or common plot device, and maybe you begin to get something useful, ie something that gives an outsider some idea of what SF actually is.  What do you think? Leeborkman 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it account for fantasy and horror, then?  Under this definition, The Wizard of Oz is science fiction. Hayford Peirce 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, HP.  Trying to keep it simple, maybe something about the nature of the "difference".  As far as I can tell, if the difference is magical, we have Fantasy, and any other kind of difference is called Science Fiction.  Horror is best left as a description of whether the story is scarey or not, whether it is fantasy, SF, or any genre.   Or maybe Horror is a separate genre, but we have hybrid, like Fantasy/Horror, SF/Horror, Noir/Horror.  See, this is the problem... SF is a catch-all label, and in this case my definition catches just a little to much.  But this does suggest just what it is about SF and Fantasy that makes then such close cousins. Any suggestions as to how this definition could be improved, or is it completely rubbush? ;-) Leeborkman 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: S.F. critics, writers, and fans have been trying for 60 years or so to come up with a definition of "science fiction" that is sufficiently broad to encompass what "everyone knows is science fiction when they see it" and yet narrow enough to keep out obvious fantasy and even non-obvious fantasy.  As I recall, members of SFWA argue about it learnedly in their journals from time to time, not to mention on panels at S.F. conventions.  I'll check with the SFWA Web pages and see if they've come up with a usable definition.  A couple of years ago, however, they threw up their collective hands and renamed the organization the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, while retaining the SFWA abbreviation.... Hayford Peirce 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about this obvious change to my proposal: Science Fiction is fiction set in a narrative world significantly different, in a non-magical way, from our own present or historical reality.  I have looked through a few hundred definitions suggested at these various conferences, and in general, they all appear to be pushing the individual's idea about what SF should be, so they all fail to cover the scope of the genre.  They talk about the future, they taslk about science, they talk about whatever, but the truth, of course, is that SF includes many other kids of strangeness.  I reckon that it is the strangeness that makes SF and Fantasy different from all other genres, and magic that separates SF from Fantasy.  If I had to write a 2 question test to determine if any given work of fiction were SF or perhaps Fantasy, it would be easy. 1) Is the world significantly different from our own present or historical reality?  No=non-SF/F.  2) Is the significant difference magical?  No=SF. Yes=Fantasy.  Would that be a reasonable test?  Thanks for your thoughts. Leeborkman 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I have at least one objection -- how does it deal with books that are clearly alternative universe stories but that are NOT INTENDED by their author to be science fiction?  My own Napoleon Disentimed is clearly science fiction, and is intended to be.  Phillip Roth's last book, however, in which the 1930s or 40s U.S. is fascist is clearly supposed to be a parable, or a warning, or some other lit'ry form.  I doubt if Roth would appreciate it being labeled S.F.  Yet by your proposed definition is definitely is.  Lotsa other people over the years (Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, I always get them confused) have written similar books.  No one calls *them* S.F., even though, on the surface, they're not much different from "The Man in the High Castle."  In any case, I've posted a query on a couple of SFWA usenet sites -- maybe someone will reply with something useful. Hayford Peirce 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of writers who wouldn't like to say they are writing SF, but that doesn't mean their books aren;t SF.  Alternative universe stories are SF, as any SF reader will tell you.  There are, as you say, a number of respected non-SF writers who move into SF territory from time to time, often in the alternative history realm, whether they like the label or not.  The only way we could exlude these from the SF definition would be by stipulating that SF must, of course, be low-brow drivel.  It just sounds like prejudice to me.  Perhaps a note in the leader, following the definition: "Science Fiction" is sometimes considered to a "pulp" genre, so that some writers do not willingly accept the label, even though their works fit squarely within the Science Fiction tradition.  Leeborkman 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would take care of my objection.  Vonnegut, of course, is the most ridiculous of the bunch. Hayford Peirce 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds pretty good.  I just looked up an old book by Ben Bova about writing S.F. -- he says people argue about the definition but by his standards it's a story of "ideas" and the "urge to know", as well as primarily being a story about "change" -- the old "what if".... Hayford Peirce 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about the old "what if" question, but that only covers a certain chunk of SF.  The are whole sub-genres of SF where the "what if" question is not important, eg where the change or difference is not crucial to the story, but is really just used as exotic setting, eg military SF (Hornblower in space stuff).  Star Wars would be a case in point.  There is no "what if" question in Star Wars, just an exotic other-world background for a standard hero story (with an obvious Fantasy element too).  These sub-genres appear to be held in some scorn by serious SF people, but as far as I can make out, they account for a large part of the SF market.  So the "change" can be the point of the story, or the "change" can be mere background colour.  It doesn't matter which, but the "change" is what makes it SF - I think that Bova has it right there.  Thanks once again.  Well, the two of us are having a nice two-man conversation here.  I'd love to re-write the leader (did you guess?), but I'd like to hear any more comment.  Anyone?  Leeborkman 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Ben's words on the subject is that they are diffuse and spread out over several paragraphs -- there's no tidy sound bite there.  About rewriting the leader: go ahead and do it any way you want.  You don't have to wait for anyone else to join this particular discussion.  If another editor comes along and wants to make changes, he can do so.  And we can discuss it (or revert) it some more.... Hayford Peirce 00:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I have atempted a mere simplificaton of the existing lead paragraph.  It retains its basic meaning, excpet that I removed the phrase which says the the SF authors purpose is to explore the consequences of the hypothetical supposition.  That would explude much common SF from the definition (as we have discussed before).  Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 06:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem, as I see it, is that the argument can go both ways.  Big Planet by Jack Vance is plainly just an adventure tale in an exotic setting.  On the other hand, we can easily say: "Jack Vance must have speculated What if -- a ship crashed on an exotic planet that was umpty-times bigger than Earth...?"  Which, I suppose, is probably just exactly what his thought processes were.... Hayford Peirce 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but you can rephrase the plot of ANY work of fiction by asking "What if?".  "What if an ambitious southern lady fell in love with a rougish-but-good-hearted pragmatist in the middle of the Civil War?"  In essence, that's what FICTION is.  My point is that the "What if?" question is not *central* to much modern SF.  Star Wars is the obvious example.  Or take "Outland", which is just the classic western "High Noon", but set in space.  Unless you think that the point of Outland is "What if I set High Noon in space?", then Outland does not satisfy the "What if?" criterion.  It's a standard non-SF tale in a standard SF setting.  Perhaps the simple way to test my idea is to ask what would happen to the story if you moved the action to a non-SF setting.  Would there stil be a story?  According to the traditional What-If view of SF, without the SF setting, there is no story, but there are actually many great SF stories that could easily be retold as non-SF. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Leeborkman 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're right.  I've just been brainwashed for decades by SF people talking about "What if...." Obviously they're talking about "What if Grandmas developed wings and could fly on a low-gravity planet?" rather than "What if my girlfriend decided to leave me?", which is the basis for a gazillion non-SF stories.  I think that this whole discussion between us illustrates perfectly why it's so hard to reach a consensus on what SF is.... Hayford Peirce 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, HP.  This is fun anyway.  Beats working.  I'm going to have to get hold of those books(!!!) of yours... Hey, I'm surprised that nobody else has jumped into this little discussion.  I would have thought that the SF page of Wikipedia would be home to lots of opinionated people.  Maybe this topic has just been discussed too much here in the past.  btw, I'm just looking out for Le Guin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" which I believe discusses the way some stories use a fantasy setting for a non-fantasy story.  Love a good essay.  Thanks again.  Leeborkman 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching for a decent definition...