Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Correct credit for the name "I, Robot"

Perhaps it is appropriate to correctly credit the name "I, Robot" to Eando Binder (pseudonym of Earl and Otto Binder). This was the title of a 1939 short story written by these brothers. According to Asimov in "Isaac Asimov Presents Great Science Fiction Stories of 1939" he was distraught over his publisher's decision to thusly title his short story collection. Perhaps, therefore, it is appropriate to register his objections here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.216.22 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation and change of meaning

As Asimov in one story used the difference between "polish" (the stuff, or verb) and Polish (nationality), can also mention scone (bakery) Scone (as in stone); and also staffs (work persons) and Staffs (short for Staffordshire). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a change of meaning that Asimov referred to in that story, but the change in pronunciation. I'm not familiar with British English, but I doubt either of those is different in pronunciation (and there are many other examples of words changing meaning when capitalized.) Astro jpc (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let this British English speaker assure you, Astro jpc, that the two cited word pairs do differ considerably in most BE pronunciations, particularly RP: "scone" generally rhymes with either "gone" or "loan" (or indeed "stone") depending on local or class accent while "Scone" (a Scottish location from which a famous stone comes) rhymes with "loon". Similarly, "staffs" usually rhymes with "laughs" - long vowel, while "Staffs" rhymes with "gaffs" - short vowel, though some regional accents render them with the same short vowel. An accomplished IPA-er could make this definitively clear to another versed in that discipline. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

Perhaps some comment on Asimov's family life would be beneficial, especially in regards to his first wife and his penchant for promiscuity. If Picasso and B. Russell have a note regarding this, a comment here would be warranted as well. Great man, but no skitting the details. --RossF18 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation request granted

A "fact" template has been removed from the "Intellectual Positions" section. And a citation has been added.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Television Series: "Probe"

There is no mention of the short-lived television series that Asimov created. Does anyone have good information on this one? It ran for 7 episodes with a couple scripts written by Asimov himself. I don't know if there's a lot of material on this one but if someone has some, I would think at least a short mention in the article would be good. JoeD80 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Foundation Series Inspiration

The article quotes Gilbert and Sullivan as the inspiration for the Foundation series. What is the basis for this and how does it relate? In one of his books of jokes he quotes the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon as his inspiration and later on he also cites Greek history as another source. It seems to me that there is a much more evident relationship between Gibbon and Foundation than between G&S and Foundation such that I think the quoted G&S inspiration needs explanation. --MeyerMeyer (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Assimov once commented that he never had to think about the story line for Foundation as the story was already written in the History of The Roman Empire. He based many of the characters in Foundation on work friends at the Navy Dockyards he had worked in. The Mule was based on one such work friend, even the physical appearance of the Mule. It is not clear who the character Ebling Miss was inspired by.Johnwrd (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bicentennial Man

The Bicentennial Man, one of Asimov's best-known stories (it won both the Hugo and the Nebula if I remember properly) is not mentioned anywhere in the article. This seems unfortunate since its absence seems to create a big gap, especially in the criticism section. Andrew Martin is both one of Asimov's most memorable and most "human" characters, and he started life as a robot. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this article is getting pretty long at this point; however, one more brief mention of another great story wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. Especially one that's been made into a movie! So go for it... Write something brief, find an appropriate section of the article and be BOLD.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People Asimov admitted were smarter than he was

The article states he said only Marvin Minsky and Carl Sagan were smarter than him, but in I. Asimov he says of Cyril M. Kornbluth "He was brighter than I was and, I think, showed much more promise." Page 65. 70.53.111.106 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And your point being, what? That this should be included in the article?--RossF18 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that bright, are you? It should be either that, or the ridiculous, irrelevant reference eliminated. You won't understand why, but someone else might. 70.53.111.106 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet American

If Russian American, or Russian-American seems not appropriate, because of the fact that he was born in the Soviet Union, and got a Soviet citizenship, then Soviet-American would be a good NOV in this occassion. I will change it. If you have any comments, please note here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian American and Russian-American is not appropriate because he left when he was 3 and never came back. From the age of 3, he did not have Soviet citizenship, but was an American. He only identified himself as an American. A more appropriate sentence, if you insist of claiming Asimov for Soviet Russia, would be an American of Russian descent. There is a similar disagreement going around with various other authors who where born in a place but grew up somewhere else and had their main body of work in yet another country. Asimov can hardly be considered a Soviet-American. If your main argument is that he should be called a Soviet-American because he was born there, that argument is not the winning one since he never spoke Russian, never wrote Russian, didn't remember Russia, never visited Russia after immigiration, didn't identify with Russia and, if anything, was a Jewish-American. --RossF18 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite the fact, that after his move to the United States, he lost his Soviet citizenship? He got a Soviet citizenship, because he was born in the country which became the Soviet Union in 1922, when he was actually two years old. He also got the citizenship of RFSR, which existed from 1917-1991. He had a dual citizenship, and if we talk about the citizenship in recognizing the nationallity of the person in the opening sentence, all citizenships are same. The Amrican one is not major than the others, without reference to the duration of residing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He was three years old when he came to US. Please read any of his biographies. There was no indication that he was ever a Soviet citizen. He was born in 1920, when even you said that Soviet Union hasn't come to be known as Soviet Union (you said that took place in 1922; actually it formally came into existence on January 1, 1923, just as Asimov has left the country - see p. 40 of his In Memory Yet Green autobiography). His father was, if anything, a citizen of the Russian Empire, so if you want to make an argument that he had his father's citizenship, well. He officially crossed the boundary of Soviet Union on January 11, 1923, so if your argument that as the family was leaving for New York, they were Soviet citizens for 11 days, well, that's something you're going to have to clarify. Also, being an immigrant from former Soviet Union, you automatically give up your Soviet citizenship when you immigrate to the capitalist west. In his bio, Asimov talks about how on May 26, 1924, a new quota law was passed that restricted immigration that would have prevented Asimov's from getting out. From this and other comments he has made, there is nothing to indicate that he ever held a Soviet citizenship and even if he had, it was for much less than a year, he was under 3 years old, and there is nothing to say that he held on to dual US/Soviet citizenship. Why would he? He has a phobia about traveling and he has never been back after leaving when he was three years old. What would be the purpose of dual Soviet citizenship, which you have to actually actively maintain - dual citizenship is not automatic, as far as I know. And Soviet authorities wouldn't have granted dual citizenship to a Jewish family who was basically escaping Soviet Union right before the borders were effectively closed to them. On p. 81 of his bio it says "my father came to the U.S. with every intention of making it his permanent home, and that meant citizenship. He took out his "first papers," a declaration of intent, after he had been in the country for three years, and in September 1928, when he had been in the United States for 5 and 1/2 years, he received his "second papers" - the real thing - and became a naturalized citizen. . . . On my father's citizenship papers, as on his passport, his two children, both minors, were mentioned. That meant Marcia and I automatically became naturalized citizens on our father's papers. I have thus been an American citizen since I was eight years old." No mention of Soviet citizenship at all. So, to conclude, there is nothing to indicate that he even ever had Soviet citizenship, and even if he had, based on being born in 1920 (when there was no Soviet Union officially yet), that citizenship would not have automatically followed him to US, quite the contrary. So unless you actually have evidence of his dual citizenship beyond leaving Russia at 3, it's just your assumption that he had dual citizenship, and I would say a much bigger than what I could gather from his bio about his only having American citizenship. And what do you mean "all citizenships are the same." You're either Russian or American, unless you actually have dual citizenship, which there is no indication that he had. And what does "not major than the others" have to do with it. A citizen is a citizen and not a citizen is not a citizen. And in Europe, Judaism, sadly or not, is considered a separate ethnic group, not only religion, to the point of my own parent's passport having "Jew" under "nationality." So, if we're talking nationality, the Asimov family was much more likely to have "Jew" as their nationality in thei passports, not Russian (of course then we're making a distinction between nationality and citizenship, if there is one). --RossF18 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought of something else. It's fairly commonly recognized that being born in a country doesn't determine what the author becomes known as. Instead, it's the author's ethnicity and actual identification/time spent in a country that matters. A child born in China to American parents (living in China and the child living there for three years) is not a Chinese American (even if the parents aren't diplomats). And Asimov was ethnically Jewish. So it's more appropriate to say "Russian-born American author" or "Soviet-born American author." Or even if was ethnically Russian, he came to identify himself and fully adopt and call himself an American with no qualifier. So, at most, his Russian heritage would be described in the bio section, not in the lead. The biggest point is still about Russian CITIZENSHIP, which I don't think he had beyond three years old, which wouldn't make him Soviet-American author, just an American author born in Russia, or a Soviet born Jewish-American author, if you really want to make that point in the lead.--RossF18 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just tell me, what is the source of your informations. You are writing that he was born, and at the time he hadn't citizenship. This could not be. He had a citizenship, either Russian or, other, but he had. You can not lose your citizenship if you just emigrate to other country. As you said, he was Jew, "ethnic Jew" (as you wrote it's not just religious). There is a big problem in recognizing the nationallity in the opening sentence. If we use the citizenship, there must be noted that he was not just American citizen. It is more common to use the ethnicity as a determination, but if we use it in this case, then what is the definition of "ethnic Americans"? Ethnic Americans are actually the indigenous people populated on the territory of the United States. Other thing that does not make sense is that you think that he gave up of his previously ctizenship, moving on west. This is a subjective opinion, which is not needed on Wikipedia. This problem exists in many articles. So, if you think it's better to note the ethnicity, not the ctitizenship, let's change it in all articles. Not just in this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship is not a universal standard applied for authors across all of Wikipedia and neither is ethnicity, but a combination of the two, per author's wishes and/or scholar assessment. First (1), I take it your point of view is that one does not give up country of birth citizenship by immigrating to another country and that dual citizenship is automatic. Is that correct? Just so that we're working from mutual understanding. Second (2), I would point out that there are more than a few authors/artists who were born in countries that are not their "home," either culturally, ethnically, physically, spiritually, etc and they have not been considered "citizens" of those countries by scholars just because they were born there. Two commonly cited examples are Isabel Allende (born in Peru, but a Chilean-American author) and Aram Khachaturian (born in Georgia, to an Armenian family and soon moved to Russia). Just as Allende is not known as Peruvian-Chilean-American and Khachaturian is not known as Georigan-Russian, Asimov shouldn't be known as Soviet-American (birth and citizenship do not necessarily go hand and hand). Standardization is welcome but nationalities and citizenship is not so clear cut where we can use citizenship across the board. Normally, that hasn't been the case and the common practice is to use neither citizenship nor ethnicity, but a combination of the two per author's or recognized standards. It is tempting to say, well, "let's use either only citizenship or only ethnicity" across the board. But they way politics enter into it, that's impossible. Taras Shevchenko was born in the Russian controlled territory as a serf - does that make him a Russian poet? No, he's a Ukrainian poet, regardless of his citizenship. There are similar cases to this where being born in a country doesn't make you that country's citizen and ethnic Jews have long been denied citizenship around the world, so Asimov's status as Soviet citizen is not as clear cut as he was born there so he was a citizen. In fact, Asimov's entire village was in the exclusion zone Russian authorities set up for Jews - something outside of Russia (that's also in the biography I've quoted above). Third, (3) getting back to the issue of Asimov's giving up the citizenship - he didn't have to give up his citizenship if he either never had it or automatically lost it upon leaving Russia, which is very common, especially for Russians leaving for America. You say like it's not at all likely for this to happen. I know for a fact that Russian authorities made it happen. In fact there is currently a push by Russian authorities to get some of the Russian who came to US to return in exchange for Russian citizenship under condition that they renounce their Soviet American citizenship. But, all that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Fourth, (4) your main basis for saying that Asimov was still a Soviet citizen after a lifetime in US (and even after Soviet Union collapsed) is that he was born there. Nothing else. Am I correct in this? Fifth, (5) note this letter to the editor by Isaac Asimov from the The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) February 19, 1987:

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Readers' Page HEADLINE: CARICATURE BODY: To the Editor: The ABC miniseries "Amerika" has been widely criticized because of its portrayal of the United Nations and Soviet-American relations. Judging from the book version, it also attacks humanism, which it equates with anti-American, totalitarian philosophy.

Humanism, in fact, is quite the reverse of this caricature. It is based on respect for democracy and civil liberties. It affirms the worth and dignity of every human being. Humanists search for meaning and values with intelligence, scientific method and social responsibility.

This is the opposite of the totalitarian, evil dogma portrayed in the rhetoric of the religious right and this television movie. It is an approach to life shared by countless Americans. Ironically, the only Soviet citizen prominently known as a humanist is the distinguished dissident Andrei Sakharov, whom we named 1980 Humanist of the Year.

DR. ISAAC ASIMOV (Asimov is president of the American Humanist Association, Amherst.)

Note that Asimov, a self-described humanist, says that the only "Soviet citizen" who's also a humanist is not him. That would eliminate the possibility that he was also a Soviet citizen. Sixth, (6) Asimov served in the US Army, and whenever someone serves in the foreign army, it's a given that citizenship is given up in the other army. I doubt the US Army would allow a Soviet national to serve in the US army. Finally, 7, if you're not convinced, I'll be looking for more evidence, but currently, your only support for your case is that Asimov was born in Russia. Speaking from personal experience, being born in a Soviet nation doesn't mean that you retain your citizenship upon escaping to America. --RossF18 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your notes are partly good, but yor examples are bad. Isabel Allende is daughter of the Chilean ambassador in Peru, and the Ambassy of Chile in Peru is in jurisdiction by Chile. The example with Aram Khachaturian is also bad, because he was born to an Armenian family in Georgia. But, in this case Asimov was not son of American diplomat, and was not born in American family. He was actually a Russian Jew, and this is signidicant, and must be pointed in the lead section, especially in the opening sentence. I admire that Asimov was self-proclaimed not as a Soviet, or Russian citizen, but if we use this self-proclaiming as a standard on Wikipedia, there are many articles in which it must be noted (ex. Bobby Fischer renounced his American citizenship, got the Icelandic, but is considered only as American). The problem is not to recognize Asimov as American, or Soviet-America. The huge problem is to use this as a standard in other articles. If we analyze the articles on English language Wikipedia, it is obvious that many of them consists of extreme POV in recognizing a person to be "American". And this is not available to other nationallities. Your words could be a good example with some modifications (they' re still a little American POV), and this would be a good example of how to recognize the nationallities.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If your biggest concern is consistency, then I'd say that referring to Asimov simply as American would be consistent to usage across to Wikipedia. You disagree. But your Bobby Fischer example is perfect in respect to why Asimov should just be regarded as American. There is no indication that Asimov ever held Soviet citizenship beyond being born in Soviet Union. Birth doesn't equate citizenship automatically across the world (in US, that's true). Fischer is still known as an American chess player regardless of his citizenship, so should Asimov be known as an American regardless of his alleged citizenship in Soviet Union. And consistency across Wikipedia is irrelevant here. Yes, that's a shame, but and if you'd like to start editing other articles, please do so. But, the point now is Asimov's article and citizenship hasn't been used as a basis for an author being called this or that - as you pointed out with Fischer. He's still American, regardless of his giving up his citizenship later in life. Asimov lived his life in US and even if he gave up his US citizenship later in life, he would still be an American writer, because all of his works are in English, he identified himself for all of his professional life with America. I am all for changing all the articles in Wikipedia to reflect the "self-proclaimed" aspect of author's nationality. But that has to be combined with scholar recognition too, which is currently how Wikipedia is written, I think. Fischer is recognized by all to be an American and his late life renouncement didn't affect that. Asimov is recognized by everyone to be an American author, and even if he renounced that later in life, he'd still be an American writer per his body of work. An interesting case is Nabokov - now there's the author who can truly bo called Soviet-American - he has a body of work both in Russian and English, identified with both Russia and America to the point of translating his own English work back into Russian. Well, that's just my argument. --RossF18 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is very explicit that previous nationalities are not listed in the lead. Only the nationality the subject held when they became famous. Asimov did not write any books or do anything for which he became famous before he was 3 years old. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that guideline, Yworo. Makes perfect sense. Nationality - "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity or sexuality should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Given the guideline, the entire discussion seems moot as far as the lead is concerned and the body discusses his being born in Russia. --RossF18 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the problem here is that in many countries, becoming a citizen doesn't necessarily entail renouncing a previous citizenship. The oath new US citizens take, on the other hand, specifically includes a renunciation of all other citizenships. --NellieBly (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The US Government and military have periodically not allowed foreign nationals certain positions, but even during WWII had all-(ethnic) Japanese units. Non-US Citizens are allowed, even encouraged, though not from selected current hostile regimes, and not deployed where they're from; while they cannot be given clearances that would give them access to material not to be exposed to "foreigners", this leaves most others positions available. Their foreign citizenship is not void, and they are briefed in full , documented, on the process of attaining US citizenship; the US does not allow dual citizenship with very many countries, except to minor children born to citizens of two countries, and those non compos mentis who cannot choose themselves. That said, they may be very rigorously backgrounded. Azimov's military service was WWII, when they were allies of necessity, but allies nonetheless. The military does keep records of foreign nationals who serve(d)... 75.203.53.110 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics undergoing featured article review

The article on the Three Laws of Robotics is currently featured, but is undergoing a review and may be delisted. If you are interested in helping bring the article back to featured standard, please visit Wikipedia:Featured article review/Three Laws of Robotics/archive1. Mike Christie (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)