Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Topics from 2018 and 2019

No middle name

Asimov didn’t have a middle name; don’t add one; previously discussed in detail here. Richard75 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found a source, where the middle name of Mr. Asimov was "Judah". Here it is: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001920/bio

—Your's sincerely, Soumya-8974 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

1) IMDB is not a WP:RS. 2) read the discussion Richard75 links to above. TJRC (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, what is this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Isaac_Asimov

Isaak Yudovich Azimov!?

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 07:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikicommons can't be used as a source. Richard75 (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

And here's one reason why: it says "1 reference imported from Wikimedia project English Wikipedia Wikimedia import URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov", so it's a circular source. I've corrected it. Thanks for flagging this. Richard75 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Asimov once joked about adopting "Isaac Asimov" as his middle name in one of his autobiographies. Funny guy. Rklawton (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Pneumonia

The article on pneumonia says "Pneumonia is usually caused by infection with viruses or bacteria..." so I don't think it's wrong to say he "caught" it. Richard75 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was fine with "caught" as well. I only changed "were diagnosed", which was irrelevant. Now this editor insists to change my "fell ill", which is right on the spot, to "developed", which again is inferior, IMHO. Sigh. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pneumonia is by definition an ailment involving fluid in the lungs, and causation varies. Viral or bacterial pneumonia is common, but environmental factors such as exhaustion, extreme cold or chemical inhalation can cause pneumonia as well. At this distant time, we can't really know, and likely they didn't know then, or more children might have survived. I think your wording is as accurate as what replaced it fwiw.. rags (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Order of selected biography

I think the order of the "Greater Foundation" series needs addressing. The Stars, Like Dust comes before The Currents of Space in in-universe chronological order. In The Stars, Like Dust there is no Republic of Trantor and Earth is still acknowledged as the origin world. By The Currents of Space, the Republic of Trantor is rapidly expanding and the universe has begun to forget Earth is the origin world.

However, the situation is somewhat confused because, as Richard75 points out, Asimov himself lists them the other way around in Prelude to Foundation.

My feeling was that it was clearer to stick with the correct order. However, whichever way around they are, I think it would be worth including a note to explain the discrepancy.

Personally, I would prefer to go with date of publication rather than taking an in-universe approach. Deagol2 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Origin of surname Azimy

The article reads: "Asimov's family name derives from azimy, a word for the winter crops in which his great-grandfather dealt..."

Above statement is highly questionable. There are many middle eastern families with such surnames: azim = great. azimy (or azimi) = of greatness

Same goes for Sergei Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff is a variation of "Rahmaani" another popular middle eastern surname. But don't take my words for it. Just research it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.142.148 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

We have a source for what the article currently says. We're not going to research it further, not least because original research is prohibited. Richard75 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Another source gives the family name as Ozimov. It's worth noting that transcription from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet sometimes varies. Isaac was not "christened," as he was not Christian, but his birthname was not written in our alphabet, so discussion is somewhat pointless. rags (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nixon

I have reverted a reversion, at the risk of raising the ire of the gatekeepers. I think the information is well-sourced and useful, and I shouldn't have to dig through the edit history in order to learn it, though it be a "view commonly held" in some circles. I agree with Asimov's viewpoint, but I can tell you that my view was far from universal then, and still controversial today. I don't think every word of the article requires seeking of consensus on this page, but if Eeng wishes to prevent others from contributing, then some discussion might be in order. Just sayin' rags (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth retaining, unless there's a reason to delete the entire politics section. Asimov self-identified as virulently Democrat, and documented his feelings on Nixon and his resignation -- probably the most prominent political issue of his time -- quite clearly. If anything is worth mentioning under "politics" this would be it. TJRC (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PhD

His PhD was in chemistry, not biochemistry, which he didn't begin to study until he moved to Boston in 1949. (In Memory Yet Green p.552 and Opus 100 page 143.) Richard75 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Spome

Asimov coined the words "robotics" and "psychohistory." These are significant contributions, but I doubt that the same can really be said about "spome." It's not in the dictionary and I've never heard of it being used by anyone else outside of the article it first appeared in. It's only short for "space home" anyway. It's fluff; I propose that we take it out. Richard75 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Deagol2 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless somebody would show that this is a well-known term perhaps in certain circles, perhaps NASA-related, I too wouldn't oppose its removal. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to pile on. Robotics and psychohistory -- and positronic -- all have OED entries citing to Asimov as the earliest use. It has no entry for spome:

Robotics:

1941 I. Asimov in Astounding Sci.-Fiction May 53 There's irony in three of the greatest experts in robotics in the world falling into the same elementary trap, isn't there?

Psychohistory:

1942 I. Asimov in Astounding Sci.-Fiction May 42/1 After the Fall will come inevitable barbarism, a period which, our psychohistory tells us, should..last from thirty to fifty thousand years.

Positronic:

1941 I. Asimov in Astounding Sci.-Fiction May 53/1 You know the fundamental law impressed upon the positronic brain of all robots, of course.

I would agree that the spome discussion should be excised from the article. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding positronic, we should definitely include that one. Richard75 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Asimov was naturalised American when he was eight. He was born in Russia but that's not a reason to call him a Russian writer. Richard75 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Also Wikipedia is pretty clear on this in WP:Ethnicity guidelines. Nationality under which the individual obtains notability is the one included in the lead. Not their birthplace, ethnicity, or previous nationalities. Not to mention we have no evidence he retained Russian nationality, making Russian as a descriptor for the lead just inaccurate in general. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial groper

In the era of the MeToo movement, it has become not only common knowledge within the field, but publicly discussed, that Asimov was (to borrow a cutesy term of the time) rather "handsy" in his interactions with females: fans, fellow writers, anybody he thought would put up with it. I feel that this aspect of his behavior definitely has a place in this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong claims need good sources, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Claims that may tarnish a persons reputation need impeccable sources. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

He addressed this issue in his 1979 autobiography on page 653, where there is a three-paragraph footnote on the subject written by Judith Merrill. Their generation didn't take it as seriously as people do today. Richard75 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this here; not a site I'm familiar with, but it seems to have editorial control, and Nevala-Lee is a published author on the history of sf -- i.e. [1]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The article cited by Mike Christie looks like a good source and should be cited in the article. Sanpitch (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I added the details of the article to the 'Further reading' section, as I was unable to work out how best to integrate this into the article itself. More publication details may be needed to flesh out the citation. The publisher is Public Books, but I'm not sure how best to cite the articles they publish. Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Burying the issue in the "Further reading" doesn't seem an appropriate way to deal with this issue. The allegation has been made in an on-line source, by a respected historian of the science-fiction community. I have put a short section in the "Influence" section. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I wasn't sure how to handle putting it in the article, and my inclusion of the article in 'Further Reading' was intended to prompt further discussion and action (too often such discussions peter out with nothing done). Thank you for adding that paragraph, which looks OK to me, though others may of course make or propose changes. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wasn’t meaning to be critical of your approach. 😊 This is the centenary of Asimov's birth, so I imagine there will be other retrospective pieces in news media and blog posts. I’m interested to see if there are any others which address this issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right way of dealing with it. The heading is: "Allegations of sexual harrassment". Who made the allegations? The source does not use the phrase "sexual harassment". The section leads off, "Alec Nevala-Lee, a specialist in the his"tory of science fiction, asserts that Asimov had a reputation amongst the science fiction community as a groper". Why "asserts"? See WP:SAID. And there doesn't seem anyone denying this. And why "reputation"? Nevala-Lee says that this happened. Not just that Asimov had a reputation of doing it. That's two different things.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are all valid points. It's also something Asimov himself admitted he did in print, so it's not just an allegation. So this bit needs some editing along the lines you suggest. Richard75 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC) I've tweaked it a bit, see what you think. It's still a bit weird that this whole section reads as if it is about Nevala-Lee though. When I have time I might add a paragraph of what Asimov himself, or Judith Merrill, said about it. The focus should be on the subject, not on the historian. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits. I added some of the references to Nevala-Lee, to satisfy the "Strong claims need good sources" comment above, by explaining that Nevala-Lee is an historian specialising in science fiction. However, I'm not very familiar with the background history of science fiction, so would welcome more info from other sources, to make the entry as balanced and complete as possible. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To be pedantic, there was no concept of sexual harassment until the late 1970s and lawsuits about sexual harassment didn't exist. Sure, his behaviour would probably be called "sexual harassment" today, but I don't see the phrase used in the source, and I don't think we should give the impression that the possibility of sexual harassment lawsuits were hanging over Asimov, because that was a different era. Perhaps "Inappropriate sexual behavior" or "Behavior towards women" would be better...--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I don't think that's just being pedantic. We need to avoid anachronisms. Richard75 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have been following this discussion and the recent changes, and agree as well. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I do as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the comment that his behavior was tolerated is a bit problematic. We have a quote from a male editor which is cited by Asimov himself. Nevala-Lee comments on this, "In reality, his attentions were often unwanted, and women found excuses to be away from the building whenever he was scheduled to appear".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There’s also the comment from an unknown « friend’s wife »: « God, Asimov, why do you always do that? It is extremely painful, and besides, don’t you realize, it’s very degrading . ». Maybe accepted by men at the time with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink, but not by the women. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

But also there's the comment by Harlan Ellison, "Whenever we walked up the stairs with a young woman, I made sure to walk behind her so Isaac wouldn’t grab her tush". It seems that even men were taking steps to prevent his behaviour.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Richard75 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Pseudonym

refused early suggestions of using a more common name as a pseudonym.

No, but in one volume of a publication called The Early Asimov, it is recounted that, having unsuccessfully submitted a story to an editor whom he strongly suspected of Antisemitism, Asimov resubmitted the same story, without altering a single comma, under the name Calvin M Knox, and was unsurprised when it was snapped up for publication.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the page number please? Richard75 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nuttyskin: Are you sure you have the right author in mind? Calvin M. Knox was a pseudonym used by Robert Silverberg. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ach, it was a long time ago I last read it, and I was relying on memory alone, so I really couldn't argue the toss with you over it. Maybe I did conflate the two authors into one anecdote, albeit accidentally.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor point, but did some text from this talk section get deleted? The beginning looks like something is missing. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably. A bot is archiving old comments automatically. Richard75 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Chauvinism in Foundation series books

I've just read the Foundation series books again after 20 years and noticed something I hadn't the first time round. Asimov is horrifyingly misogynistic! The comments from male characters about women in general and some in particular in NO WAY support the claim in this article that Asimov was a feminist. He may have considered himself one, but he most definitely is not expressing that in the Foundation Series.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.216.230 (talk • contribs)

Your own observations would be original research (which we can't use), but let us know if you find a reliable source which says that. Richard75 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This needs a source. Also perceptions of gender were different when these were written.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The fictional planet Solaria and social distancing

In early 2020 the term "social distancing" became prevalent in real-world human culture. In Asimov's fictional story, The Naked Sun, the people on the fictional planet of Solaria have a cultural practice of something that could be called "extreme social distancing" (triggered, in part, by their fear of germs) -- interested editors may watch to see if any RS connect the dots between Asimov and these practices. If so, a paragraph or two may be warranted, either in the author's article, or in the article about The Naked Sun. Note that the practice existed well before Asimov was born, but it is unclear if it was used in fiction the way Asimov described the culture of Solaria. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Asimov was just reflecting the past onto the future here. Naked Sun was written in 1956, "Social distancing" was used before that, for example: 1947.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Library of the Universe

Should this be mentioned, either here or in the bibliographies? https://www.goodreads.com/series/56782-isaac-asimov-s-library-of-the-universe Jim.henderson (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The books are listed in the bibliography articles. You could find a way to note that they were part of a series. Richard75 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct spelling of his name

The correct spelling of the Russian for his name is "Azimov". If you check with the really old documentation on him and his first works, you will find that it was originally spelled correctly in English as "Azimov". This site needs to correct the spelling of his name. The "s" is not the correct transliteration, nor is it the correct sound made by the "z" consonant in his actual name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.200.26 (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The names of articles on Wikipedia are ruled by naming conventions, like WP:COMMONNAME e.g. If there is a source for the spelling with a "z", you can add it as an alternative spelling.

On this note I'd like to add that IMHO the "Family name etymology" section should be renamed to "Name", because it is not only about the family name, and then this information could be added there. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Asimov's father spelled it with an S when he arrived in the US (because he thought S was pronounced Z), and his descendants kept it. All of Isaac Asimov's published work was credited to Asimov. This is well documented. We could add a footnote about it I suppose. Richard75 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever it was in Russian, in English it is established as "S".--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Isaak Yudovich Ozimov" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Isaak Yudovich Ozimov. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Isaak Yudovich Ozimov until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is closed. Richard75 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dr. A" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dr. A. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Dr. A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is closed. Richard75 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Tartu

The 1918 Constitution gave the official name of Russia as the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, but this was not recognized officially by countries other than Finland and the Baltic states (in the treaties (plural) of Tartu in 1920). What criteria are we to use in wikipedia for the name of a nation? Sbelknap (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia was one big mess in 1920 with Russian Civil War raging. But does it matter much?--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, Russia was one big mess in 1920. That is the point. I notice that you use the term "Russia" to describe the country at that time. It seems we agree. The current descriptor seems to me to be an example of presentism. The term "Russia" is understandable now and it would have been understandable in 1920. I suggest we use the term "Russia" to describe The Good Doctor's homeland in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not just call it what the Russians called it at the time? Who cares what other countries called it before they recognised the revolutionary government? Richard75 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Because there was no "it". It was one big mess of red, white, black, and other areas all of which changed control. Smolensk was contested by the Byelorussian Soviets for example, though not as messy as Makhnovia. Russia avoids anachronistic politics.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've come across this guidance which suggests that we just say "Russia": Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Richard75 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We agree. That is my point. Everybody in Russia at the time of Asimov's birth would recognize what was denoted by the term "Russia" but there was no such consensus as to the use of the term "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic." There was, in fact, a civil war underway at that time. There are several relevant issues. First, the Russian government adopted the Gregorian calendar on January 24th 1918, so the dates are aligned with that of Europe and America at the time of Asimov's birth. Asimov was born on an unknown date between October 4, 1919, and January 2, 1920, inclusive. Both Kolchak and Denikin, subscribed to the principle of "non-predetermination" by which they refused to determine what kind of social or political system Russia would have until after Bolshevism was defeated. Arguably, the turning point of the civil war was when Russian White army commander Kolchak was captured and executed, which occurred in February, 1920, so after Asimov was born. The treat(ies) of Tartu were signed on 2 February 1920, so after Asimov was born. Also, the Reds did not consolidate their hold on "Russia" until after the Kronstadt mutiny was suppressed in March, 1920, ( or until late 1920, depending on ones definition of state control), so also after Asimov was born. For these reasons, I propose that the current text state, "Asimov was born in Petrovichi, Russia on an unknown date between October 4, 1919, and January 2, 1920, inclusive." Sbelknap (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sold. Richard75 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this a bit late. Richard75, where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) did it suggest to use just Russia? I see no problem with being precise, especially since Asimov himself was very precise about this, as it says in the footnote.Debresser (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"When a place does not have a #widely accepted name, use the romanized Russian name, as per the WP:RUS default romanization guidelines." In this case, the country of Asimov's birth did not have a widely accepted name, even within that country, as there was a civil war underway, the outcome was uncertain, and the leaders of the major opposition in that war disagreed with the eventual victor as to the form of government and therefore to the name that would be used to denote that government. I agree that there is no problem with being precise. I would expect that you would agree that there is also no problem with being accurate. In his own comment on the political geography of his birthplace, Asimov was precise but not accurate. (Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the actual value. Precision refers to the variability of repeated measurements.) Sbelknap (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, neither was there a "Russian name", as you claim. Or if there was, then it was "Russian SFSR". I would prefer the accuracy over the resulting ambiguity. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure there was. From the time when the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Moscow united in the 15th century, some of former Kievan Rus’ territories used the Byzantine-influenced name for Rus’, Rossiya, which was rendered as 'Russia' within the nation from the establishment of the Tsardom onward. At the time Asimov was born, 'Russia' was the name in common parlance. There was *no* consensus on the name 'Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic' until after the civil war ended, and the Bolsheviks assumed control, which happened in 1920, *after* Asimov's birth. Sbelknap (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the guideline. "When a place does not have a #Widely accepted name, use the romanized Russian name" means that if there is no standard English spelling of the name of a certain locality, just apply standard romanization of Russian and use the result. This sentence is not about naming, only about spelling.

In any case, your previous reply more or convinced me. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with saying Asimov was born in Russia, simply because it is simple. But I do have a problem with the recent edit summary, "There was no Soviet Union in 1920". No, there wasn't, but there was a RSFSR, which is what was linked to. Also, the Kronstadt Mutiny was suppressed in March 1921, not 1920, but I don't see the relevance. I do not see how the Treaties of Tartu established the reality of the RSFSR. Russia was not a "mess"; it was in the middle of a civil war. Would anyone argue that someone born during the American Civil War was not born in the USA? I suggest support the use of "Russia" on the grounds of simplicity, but don't put forward complex arguments, particularly if you have your dates wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Native name in Hebrew

An anonymous IP has today changed Asimov's "native name" in the infobox from the Russian language to the Hebrew alphabet, giving the reason that most Jews in Russia at the time would have used Hebrew, which is fair enough. However, they have given his surname as אסימאב, whereas in Asimov's 1979 autobiography (page 11) Asimov spells his surname אױםאװ. (Google Translate, which might not be reliable when it's used for names instead of words, translates these as Asimab and Oymov, respectively, and gives a third spelling for Asimov.) In his autobiography (same page), Asimov says he understood Yiddish, which uses the Hebrew alphabet, so it's very likely that he knew how to spell his own name, so I have substituted Asimov's spelling. Richard75 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps add a reference for the Hebrew name spelling to head off edit wars. Deagol2 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "אױםאװ" you probably meant "אזימאװ". That could very well have been the original Yiddish spelling, and I think the autobiography is enough of a reference. I made the edit a few month ago, but didn't reply here, which ommission I correct now. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious novel counting

The article says Asimov only wrote four SF novels during the 25 years between 1957 and 1982, but I only count three: the last Lucky Starr book (1958), Fantastic Voyage (1966) and The Gods Themselves (1972). Richard75 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This was added in 2004 (!) in this edit by Raul654. The second half of the sentence was added by CodeTalker in this edit in 2019, so he may also have an answer. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

At the time I added the statement that there were over 120 non-fiction books, I did not fact-check the existing claim of four SF books. After doing some research, I agree that there were only three, if "between" is taken exclusively. There were two SF novels published in 1957 ("The Naked Sun" and "Lucky Starr and the Moons of Jupiter") and one published in 1982 ("Foundation's Edge") but between them only the three that Richard75 mentions. CodeTalker (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to hear from Raul654 because he hasn't edited since January. I'll change it to three. Richard75 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What about The Heavenly Host (1974)? Debresser (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Asimov Online, that is a short story collection, not a novel. There were fifteen SF short story collections published between 1957 and 1982, but the statement here is about novels. CodeTalker (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

According to all websites I looked at, it is an extended version of a short story, not a collection. See also Isaac Asimov bibliography (categorical)#Novels not part of a series. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's long enough to be called a novel though. It's a longer version of a short story, published on its own in a book, but it's a book for small children, still not with a very long word count. Richard75 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have the statement that there are four, and we have a candidate for the fourth. So if the only question is its status as a novel, then I am inclined to think that this was the original intention. Especially since the editor couldn't very well have written "Asimov only wrote three SF novels and a story this is perhaps a novel, perhaps not", now could he? :) Debresser (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that this is what the original editor meant, but he was wrong. Asimov never stopped writing short stories during this 25-year period, and this story is just one of them. I think we should change it to three. Richard75 (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The tagged statement is specifically about novels. If we would decide that this is not a novel, I could agree with you, and indeed I don't see sources calling The Heavenly Host a "novel", just "book" or "story". I repeat that in Isaac Asimov bibliography (categorical)#Novels not part of a series it is listed as a novel, but then again there are other books in that list that I am not sure are novels in the strict meaning of that word. On the other hand, as you can see at Novel#Length, the term "novel" is hard to define precisely, and I think that its use in this sentence (and in the header of the section in Asimov's bibliography) is not completely according to the literary definition, rather a bit less formal, and I would propose to keep it as such. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Heavenly Host has 7900 words, so it's hardly a novel. Darkday (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the author of that sentence included "The Bounds of Infinity" (1958), although Asimov abandoned that novel. Darkday (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't count that if it's unfinished and unpublished. Richard75 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why count? It's complicated. Half finished novel, a more than a short story but less than a novel maybe novel, and so on. Why just say "few" instead of three or four?--Chuka Chief_talk 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In customary English usage, "between 1957 and 1982" includes those years. For example, "I attended college between 1942 and 1946." Thus, the novels of 1957 and 1982 should be counted, or the year range changed. Also, the number of years is not 25. It is either 26 or 24. Since this has subsequently been improved, it doesn't need correction now. Zaslav (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiTree

Today someone added a link to Asimov's entry at the WikiTree website. I've hidden the link using <!-- --> and added a warning to see this talk page, because I don't think the information there is accurate. For one thing, it gives Asimov a middle name, which is very dubious, as discussed before on this talk page at length and more than once (see archives). For another, some of the genealogy contradicts information given in his autobiography. It's not a Wikipedia-affiliated site (despite its name), but anyone can edit it, without providing sources, so I don't think we can regard it as a reliable source. Richard75 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Isaak Azimov"

The infobox gives his original name as Isaak Azimov, without giving a source. Where has this come from? His name before he moved to America would have been written in either the Hebrew or Cyrillic alphabet, and the first time it was written in Western letters it was Isaac Asimov. Unless there is a reliable source for this, I suggest changing it. Richard75 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Richard75 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Country of birth

The fact that he was born in Russia is largely irrelevant given that he lived almost his whole life in America and wrote all of his books in English. The short description should describe him as American, not Russian. Richard75 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Deagol2 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And as he was fond of pointing out, by the time he was born it was the Soviet Union, not the Russian Empire. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union was 1922. Richard75 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

He was talking to Americans. The idea that the Russian Soviet Republic was not technically "the Soviet Union" in some abstract sense would require a level of subtlety of comprehension of which Americans by and large were not and are not capable. He was just saying that the Czar was not in the Kremlin when he was born, and the Bolsheviki were. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Still, it wasn’t the Soviet Union. --82.37.67.151 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Doctors prevented?

The bit about doctors preventing the disclosure of Isaac’s AIDS is puzzling. Can doctors in the USA forbid you to talk freely about your husband’s diseases? Why had Janet to wait until the doctors died? --82.37.67.151 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

She took their advice, that's all. Richard75 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

But in that case, why would she need to wait until all of the doctors died? Was that a matter of some sense of respect, a promess, or what? Why did they care? Or was it just a coincidence that by the time she changed her mind they were all dead? Sorry but I don't think this makes sense for most cultures without further explanation. --82.37.67.151 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They weren't all dead, it says most. Just a coincidence. Richard75 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To put his section back onto the subject... The ant-anti-AIDS trivia I chopped out. This article is about Asimov, not the societal attitudes about AIDS... that has its own article. I would also note wp:talk.Shajure (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Not American

He was born i Russia and is Russian. When one is succesful and living in the US you are American and vice versa if you are not. That is problematic and not correct. Orograph (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your second sentence, but please read WP:ETHNICITY, which says "In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident..." and "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". In other words, the nationality reported by Wikipedia is normally the country of the person's citizenship, not their place of birth. CodeTalker (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you ever hear the guy talk? He may have been born somewhere else, but he was an American from Brooklyn, as American as Neil Diamond or Aaron Copeland or Pete Hamill or Chuck Schumer! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which define him as Russian and we may discuss them. Otherwise this is just your opinion, which doesnt go into wikipedia articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

sex/women/romance

My edits were reverted with the edit summary:

• (1) saying women and sex are essentially the same topic is unbelievably sexist.
  • Well, it was sloppy, but not unbelievably. Please see the whole my contribution and the refs cited: in view of Asimov, "mush" had no place in science fiction, and in his view women in scifi were nothing but for introducing "mush". I do agree that the section title may look sexist, but in this context it is the same subject. I changed the section title. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• (2) Conflating how Asimov wrote about women and how he treated them in real life is to confuse two separate issues, they're not related.
  • What he wrote and how he treated I described the umbrella term "attitude" Andd the sources cited discuss the two in same place as the same issue. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What is more, there are still more reputable sources which discuss Asimov's attitude to women, so that a whole separate article may be concocted, and to need to split this issue into a bunch of microsections: how he dealt with women in real life, how he wrote about them, and how he protrayed them in his sstories - these are the faces of oen and the same subject: Asaac Asimov's attitude to women. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current set-up makes little sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a question : Is there a duty for a novelist to create the "stron female caracters" ? I thought he write what he wants... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.87.247 (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just an answer: Wikipedia is not social media. In article talk pages we discuss the ways to improve the articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments using the ~~~~Shajure (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Deadlink "See also: § Sexuality and women"

The section "attitudes on women" ends with "See also: § Sexuality and women". I would love to see also, but there is nothing. What went wrong?--91.64.37.35 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. There was a recent tug o'war over section headings, and when the section was retitled, apparently nobody noticed the section link elsewhere. I've removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Assault of Women

I improved the references in the section "Attitudes to Women", and in the process changed the title to "Assault of Women". Someone then changed this to "Alleged Assault of Women", although it has since been changed back. I have a feeling that the person who changed it to "Alleged Assault" is probably more correct than I was in the original. Does it not remain an allegation unless he unambiguously admits the assault, or is convicted, or there is some truly extraordinary evidence (eg unambiguous video?) Asimov admitted to very poor behaviour, but I asked some of the relevant researchers and I don't know of any references where he admitted to assault, nor of any where he was so much as charged with assault let alone convicted.

It is important to stick to the facts, and I think on reflection these are only allegations. Even if the allegations were sufficient to cause the police of the time to bring charges, that did not happen.

Dan Shearer (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

As that section seems to rely primarily on Nevala-Lee's column, that source supports a heading like "Misconduct toward women". There is no mention of "assault" even though the modern interpretation of his actions would be considered such today. Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Misconduct would be better. Since Asimov freely admitted to such behaviour, I don't think these are allegations.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

They're not just allegations, he freely admitted it, but he didn't think of it as assault. Times and attitudes have changed, and "misconduct" might be better than "assault" which could be considered anachronistic (or we could just go back to "attitude" but I'm fine with misconduct). Richard75 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The section on sexual harassment has been moved into the "Views" section, as a sub-section along with his views on politics, religion, the environment, other authors, etc. I'm not sure why; the focus of the sexual harassment section is on his behaviour, it's not just about his opinions. I think it was better where it was, it seems out of place now. Richard75 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

More representative photo?

The physical appearance of Asimov that most people are familiar with, and the one depicted the most in pop culture, is of a middle-aged or elderly Asimov with sideburns and longer hair. Even he said "they became a permanent feature of my face, and it is now difficult to believe early photographs that show me without sideburns", as mentioned in the article. Should the article photo be changed to reflect that? The only argument I can think of for the present photo is that it depicts him as he looked like when he wrote most of his famous books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C2B3:8800:1C78:2CCE:CCAB:163A (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We can only use photos that are in the public domain. Darkday (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing books

I remeber reading one of his books (translation of the title to Croatian was not literal, so I had trouble finding it). It's a 1979 non fiction book 'A Choice of Catastrophes' which discusses various possibilities in which life on Earth could end and the probabilities of it happening). Here's the link to the title on GoodReads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1891139.A_Choice_of_Catastrophes?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=NVe3zWNOh9&rank=2 . Pls feel free to add to bibliography. HTH TPetricevic (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Richard75 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, this book was not really missing, since the bibliography in this article is a selected bibliography. Or at least, it started out that way, but over the years, more and more books were added. But I think trying to include every Asimov title in this article doesn't make much sense, since we already have three(!) dedicated pages covering Asimov's books. Darkday (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

True. We have external links to complete lists for people who want that. (Maybe we should be more selective?) Richard75 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein, L. Sprague deCamp & Isaac Asimov picture

The description for this picture is wrong.

They are, from left to right: Robert A. Heinlein, then L. Sprague deCamp, then Isaac Asimov.

The current description confuses Heinlein and deCamp. 104.240.132.209 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Category "[a]ge controversies"

Could anyone please tell me if, given the uncertainty of Asimov's birthday, this page should fall under that category? Thylacine24 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Uncertain doesn't mean it's controversial. Richard75 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

How is it possible for his parents not to have known in which year their son was born? Can we have an explanation of this? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot going on in Russia at that time. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that, but if you are a parent you must know that political and economical turmoil won’t make you forget if you had your son in 1919 or 1920… There’s something really strange going on there… Maybe it’s due to cultural differences. I know a hundred years ago people had 12 children and 6 died in infancy, so birth years were maybe less important back then… still, modern readers are baffled if left without and explanation… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a combination of things, including their use of a different calendar (in which the range of possible dates were all in the same year). Richard75 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that’s an excellent point, didn’t know all the range was in the same year in the Old Calendar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.70.45 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Three -Vandalism

The Big Three are, according to Brian W. Aldiss in Billion Year Spree, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury. Robert A. Heinlein never was one of them, this claim is "alternative facts" and this vandalism doesn't seem to be recent. Please correct. 2001:7E8:C29C:2400:983E:960F:67FC:EB6 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

On which page do you see this? I did a search for "Big Three" in a PDF copy of Billion Year Spree and I don't find that phrase. Also there are numerous sources that say that Heinlein rather than Bradbury was the third member of the Big Three, so even if Aldis did say this, I don't know that we should give it a lot of weight. CodeTalker (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Big Book of Science Fiction identifies the "big three" as Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, as does The Rise and Fall of American Science Fiction, from the 1920s to the 1960s, Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia, and Fifty Key Figures in Science Fiction (which notes that van Vogt was replaced as one of the "big three" as his popularity waned and Clarke's grew). (See also: Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein#Big_Three_-Vandalism and Talk:Arthur_C._Clarke#Big_Three_-Vandalism) Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As I stopped reading SF around 1995, never ever Heinlein had been related to as one of the Big Three of SF; Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury was canonic and never questioned, so that now I have difficulties finding written sources ... actually, I learned that from one of my teachers. Bradbury was known for the TV-serial Martian Chronicles and the Truffaut-movie Fahrenheit 451, Heinlein had nothing comparable until late 80s action flick Starship Troopers. And Heinlein wasn't read in Europe due to his political views.2001:7E8:C29C:2400:BCE9:F89E:C42E:1B87 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you still need a source, not just something your teacher told you. And Heinlein started writing in 1939, and it's irrelevant which films were being made in the 80s. Richard75 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(copying from Talk:Robert A. Heinlein as the IP started the same conversation on multiple articles.) I finally got hold of a copy of Billion Year Spree. I cannot find the phrase "big three" anywhere in the book. I looked up each mention of Bradbury in the book, and it is never paired with Asimov and Clarke in any meaningful way. Do you have a page number for your reference? Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Talking after death

In the bibliography section there is a quote of him in 1994...well he died in 1992. 194.65.43.51 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The date is the date of the source, not the date he made the statement that is quoted. That is, the book in which the quote is printed was published in 1994. This is the correct form for citations albeit potentially confusing I agree. MarcGarver (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)