Talk:Isaac Asimov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isaac Asimov is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Isaac Asimov article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Former featured article Isaac Asimov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2005.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Isaac Asimov as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish, Indonesian, Japanese or Hungarian language Wikipedias.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Previous discussions were archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Topics from 2006

[edit] The entire series of Opus books

Someone more familiar with Asimov's works than I should expand his nonfiction book list: I'm almost certain there was an Opus 300 in addition to the 100 and 200 titles listed, and quite probably a 400 as well! Making this a complete list would be a great idea.

[edit] Merging Robot Dreams and Robot Visions

Merging Robot Visions into this article, as the tag posted atop the page suggests, would be a bad idea. As this article stands, it's overstuffed with information; adding the contents of a relatively insignificant story collection would make the seams burst. The only collection whose Table of Contents I could think of including here would be I, Robot, and even that would only be permissable if we didn't have a few dozen kilobytes of good content. Leave the content where it is, and add to it if the page looks too short.

Be seeing you. Anville 10:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Asimov's History of the Future"

I removed the following text from the article:

Asimov foresaw these trends in the future:
  • The flight to space of Earth's elites. The fittest (physically and intellectually) people on Earth abandon the planet to live in Space Habitats. These people, known as "Spacers" look down with arrogance on the wretched masses left behind on Earth.
  • The downfall of robots, as people shun robotic technology due to the fear of the ever increasing dominance of robots and the loss of personal freedom.

First of all, it's a distortion: the Spacers aren't the fittest people on Earth, physically or intellectually. They're just the first who decided to leave. They look down upon the Terran City-dwellers, and they go to extreme lengths to deny their Terran ancestry. You're playing into Spacer propaganda. (-;

Second, saying that Asimov "foresaw" these happenings is a bit of a stretch. He worked them out as fiction, sure, but not even consistently: the Spacers in "Mother Earth" (The Early Asimov) aren't exactly the same as those in The Caves of Steel, and neither are consistent with the hint he drops at the end of Nemesis. (I note in passing that the Spacers of the Foundation series do not generally live in "space habitats", but rather on the surfaces of extrasolar planets. Nemesis is his only novel to feature orbiting space habitats on a large scale, and in that novel, "Spacers" are hinted to descend both from Earthers and from the habitat dwellers.) Even in his non-fiction, Asimov never stuck to one party line about the future. Sometimes he was optimistic, and sometimes he sank to Vonnegutian levels of pessimism. The letters in Yours, Isaac Asimov sample these opinions.

Cheerio. Anville 09:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm changing Озимов to Азимов; Озимов is extremely rare in Russian; Азимов isn't (Do a google search for the two. If we are going to assume that it was transcribed back into Russian as Азимов, ит мэйкс сенс thат ит ваз Азимов ту бигин виth. :))))

[edit] some people just don't read carefully enough...

under criicisms, it is stated that asimov contradicts himself in stories where robots violate the laws. This is entirely untrue. Asimov explains in numerous stories how the first law is more important to a robot than the second, the second more so than the third, and the third just a sort of failsafe. It is also explained how certain degrees of harm done to a human may cause a robot to choose to lie to avoid physical harm, or something similar. an excellant example of this is "Liar!" the very story used to make the logic of asimov's stories seem broken. It's also important to point out that some contradictions that the robots must make to the laws leave them unusable, or were due to a malfunction in the first place.

I agree. It is a plot device to portray "what everyone assumes to be true" about a topic and then have the hero of the story be the first person to look past the assumption to the truth that everyone had ignored. It is not a contradiction to show everyone assuming that a robot cannot lie and then reveal an unusual situation in which a robot can lie. --JWSchmidt 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it any better now? Supporting information can be found in the article Pebble in the Sky and at this discussion, though I don't think this article should go into deep detail. Save that for The Foundation Series, when we get around to making it a modern-day FA-worthy page. Anville 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Has "retcon" escaped from the jargon cage? The second Google hit for it is some kind of dictionary of jargon. --JWSchmidt 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
By "some kind of dictionary", you of course mean the Jargon File, that palimpsest of eccentric technological anthropology slowly being poisoned by Eric S. Raymond's peculiar political proclivities. "Retcon" is the best word I could think of to indicate what was going on. Other articles on Asimov topics use the word, e.g., Spacer and Three Laws of Robotics, and so do various people talking about Asimov in the outside Web (see here, here, here or over here). Since this term wikilinks to the retcon article, the sentence stays within the letter of the jargon style guide, though if anyone's got a better way to stay within its spirit, I'd love to know. Anville 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation Series no longer a Featured Article

The Foundation Series, which became a Featured Article back in the olden days, is Featured no more. This is really a good thing, since standards have advanced faster than the poor article did. In due time, we should be able to build it back.

Best wishes to all, Anville 10:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article could really use a colour photograph

Aren't there any good colour photo's of him in the public domain? Would be good if someone could upload it. :)

[edit] Ethnicity

I removed "jewish" from the first sentence (added on June 27). Asimov called himself an atheist or humanist as the article says later on. Thus I don't think the fact that his parents were jewish belongs in the very first sentence of the article. --Frol 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same reaction when the edit appeared, but looking into it, I found that Asimov also called himself a Jew.
[Asimov] said he tried to make up for this "by making sure that everyone
knows I'm a Jew, so while I'm deprived of the benefits of being part of
the group, I am sure that I don't lose any of the disadvantages, because
no one should think I am denying my Judaism in order to gain certain
advantages." -- Sheli Teitelbaum, "Isaac Asimov's Galactic Talent",
The Jerusalem Report, April 23, 1992, p. 31.
so I'd let it stand. -- JHunterJ 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In his writings, as I recall, Asimov said he considered himself ethnically and culturally to be Jewish, though he did not practice the faith. --Isaac Lin 16:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Words pronounced differently with capitals

To Asimov's Polish/polish can I add Stone of Scone/scone (hopefully edible)

Jackiespeel 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any mention of Asimov's Polish/polish to add that to. -- JHunterJ 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended reading order

I've reverted the deletion of the reference to the recommended reading order; I agree we can't do recommendations, but I think this is probably OK. There are two reasons I think it's OK. First, it's not a recommendation that any given book is better than any other; it's merely a list of the books in the series sorted in order of internal chronology, since this is quite difficult to determine if you just have a pile of the books in front of you. Second, that page actually includes a comment to the effect that some people recommend reading them in publication order instead, so it's not a unilateral recommendation.

If you don't agree, please revert again to remove the link, but I reverted because I thought the deletion might be based on a misunderstanding of what the recommendation was. Mike Christie 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text mostly by mistake, missing a word in the sentence seeing "for recommended reading, see the Foundation series". I did go back and specify that the link is to Asimov's recommended reading order, however: That seems to be a more accurate description of the link and more neutral to boot. --Starwiz 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien sex

From the article: "Nevertheless, in response to these criticisms he wrote The Gods Themselves, which contains aliens, sex, and alien sex." Is this really not a joke? Found it funny, at least :) --Heida Maria 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's true. Anville 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

I removed the following blurb from the Quotations section. Apparently, the famous Salvor Hardin line about violence being the last refuge of the incompetent was

Derived from "I do not believe in violence; it is the last resource of fools." Lady Anne Bellamy, a character in Dawn by H. Rider Haggard.

I've never read a statement by Asimov to this effect. Anville 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot in this entry that isn't supported by a statement by Asimov. “Original research” (your condemning term in the article history) plainly doesn't mean statements not by the subject of the entry. (Indeed, on human subjects of entries could give statements in the first place.) So I conclude that you are grasping for reasons to exclude a datum to the effect that Asimov's most famous quotation wasn't particularly original. —71.154.208.74 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The provided citation does not say anything about the quote being dervived from Dawn. Rangek 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That set is meant to be read as a sequence of derivation. Indeed, would you be so absurd as to claim that we'd have to prove that the third quotation thereupon is derived from the second? —71.154.208.74 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, 1775 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the No Original Research policy. This article can only state things which other sources, reliable and verifiable sources, have said first. In this case, in order to assert that any particular Asimov quotation is a reference to an earlier aphorism, we need either (a) a statement by Asimov himself to this effect or (b) the word of a literary critic making the suggestion as a plausible theory. In the first case, we'd say, "Asimov said that. . ." while in the second case, we'd write, "Literary theorist John Smith observed that. . ." Neither case applies without an actual source, clearly specified so that other people can look it up and check for themselves. Anville 03:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the most frequent pathologies on Wikipedia are “Please read…” directions to policies that in fact do not support the pleader. You can abusively demand a citation for anything and everthing, including a citation for a citation. Wikipedia is not about creating fan pages with ad hoc defenses for inflating the object of worship. Not only is the Johnson allusion obvious and deliberate, it is arguably too obvious to bother including. The Haggard influence is less familiar and more interesting. —71.154.208.74 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Johnson is obviously an influence. That doesn't change the fact that Haggard was also an influence. —71.154.208.74 03:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Third parties, please indicate whether my referral to policy counts as an "abusive" demand. Anville 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Asking a fannish mobocracy to come to your defense is apparently your last refuge. —71.154.208.74 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a common method of aborting stupid flamewars before they start. I don't have a fan club, nor have I ever relied upon mob psychology to get my way on the Wiki. Anville 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The notion, of course, isn't that you have fans, but that you are knowingly calling upon fans of Asimov to mobocratically protect his reputation. Fans of Asimov will naturally be a disproportionate share of readers of this discussion. And calling on a mob is indeed a common device for imposing a desired rule (and it is now-a-days the common way of establishing what prevails in Wikipedia), but it's commonality doesn't legitimize it. —71.154.208.74 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is completely and utterly inane. 71.154.208.74, you insist of including as reference a random list of factoids collected by one Susan Stepney, who has absolutley no literary credentials. What's more, the cited list of violence-related quotes has absolutely no commentary to suggest that either one is derived from the other. They are merely grouped by theme and intended message. By the same logic anyone can cite any number of pacifist quotations tracing back to any period in history. Anyway, Asimov's phrasing owes more to Samuel Johnson -- but I am not going to include that in the article text because it is original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, neither is original research, because each lacks novelty. You truly flatter yourself if you think that your claim about Johnson is novel; therein lies inanity. —12.72.69.73 21:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this to imply that you are aware of the same parallel desribed by a reputable source? Great! Include a reference to it in the article and end this silly discussion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{fact}}

Wikipedia provides a tag “{{fact}}”, which renders as “[citation needed]” for requesting/demanding a citation. This tag exists because assertions are not supposed to be deleted immediately just because a given reader doesn't know of support for them. —71.154.208.74 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the citation-needed tag. I used it myself, about one month and five hundred edits ago, tidying up Earth in fiction. I've used other templates, like {{unreferenced}}, as well. With all due respect, the important point here is not about adding tags; it's about respecting that little notice we see every time we make an edit: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable."
Also, edit summaries which state that other Wikipedia contributors act "loutishly" are not considered civil. It says so specifically, right there under the Examples section of the Civility policy: "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" counts as petty discourtesy. Me, I personally don't care. I'm like the Operative in Serenity: "You can't make me angry." However, such remarks are sure to make somebody take offense, sooner rather than later.
I mention this only so that the 'pedia can continue to be a beneficial editing environment for us all. Peace. Anville 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't know what civility actual is. It is not merely general pleasentness, and it is certainly not pleasentness in the face of an inexcusably grotesque misrepresentation of what one has written. In fact, civility began to crumble around here when you engaged in immediate deletion, instead of using the “{{fact}}” tag.
In fact, you aren't positioned to know whether Asimov once indeed remarked that he'd derived the line in part from Haggard, so you're not even positioned to know whether your (excessive) verifiability criterion could be met. Your deletion was plainly motivated by something other than a good faith adherence to Wikipedia policy. —71.154.208.74 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is totally true that we have no evidence "Asimov once indeed remarked that he'd derived the line in part from Haggard". We also have no evidence he didn't. Therefore we must be contemplating this from the "[a] literary critic making the suggestion as a plausible theory" angle. (Because if we aren't then I could say anyone said anything, as long and people would have to prove it thatthey didn't. Chaos.) According to your edit summary, "The editor of the cited list of quotations, and the source who drew her attention to the Haggard quote," the editor of the website you cited, and/or her source are the "literary critic".
No one has argued that the note should stand because Asimov might have made the admission. The point was that even if Anville's standard of demanding such admission was the only sufficient support, he should have inserted a “[citation needed]” instead of immediately deleting. It is simply wrong of you to take a point presented in refutation of one claim, and attack for failure to refute some completely different claim or claims. (—12.72.69.73 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I think you are misunderstanding me. Of course, "no one has argued that the note should stand because Asimov might have made the admission." Therefore we must analyze this from the "[a] literary critic making the suggestion as a plausible theory" angle. As such, we must look at the cited source and ascertain whether it constitues "[a] literary critic making the suggestion as a plausible theory". The consensus seem to be that, no, Prof. Stepney is not a literary critic, at least not one credible enough to cite in an encyclopedia, and additionally, the web page does not make any suggestions, plausible or otherwise. Rangek 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand you; nor, on the other hand, did I allow a cheap rhetorical ploy to be used without mention. —12.72.69.73
Now I am lost. All I was trying to do was establish a consensus view as to what the criteria were for judging statements like the one in question. Anville suggested that there are two ways to validate such a statement: 1) with a source in which Asimov states his intent, or 2) with a source in which a literary critic makes the suggestion as a plausible theory. All I did above was to systematically evaluate each of these possibilities and show how neither applies in this case. How is that "a cheap rhetorical ploy"? Rangek 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This whole section plainly wawsn't about whether the Haggard note should be kept in the middle- or long-term. There is already a section, up above, about that issue. This Section is about proper use of the “{{fact}}” tag. You were simply ganging here, and writing as if you'd rebutted the point in the purpose for which it was delivered. —12.72.72.250 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The discussion has wandered somewhat from the beginning. Rangek 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So, is this a credible source? Well, the editor of webpage is a Computer Science professor, and she does have quite a bit of stuff written up about sci-fi, but I don't think she rises to the level of a source for wikipedia. At least not for her literary criticisms. I mean, heck, I am a professor. If I put up a bunch of sci-fi reviews on my web site and claim that Asimov wasn't influenced by Haggard, then what?
That would be something of a case for amending the note and also citing your hypothetical page. (—12.72.69.73 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Huh? So every professor with a web page and five minutes can have any hare-brained idea the might have enshired in Wikipedia? I don't think that is a wise course for Wikipedia to take. Indeed, it seems that the Wikipedia community is aware of this folly. Rangek 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No, not every professor with a web-page; that's why I emphasized the “something”. The problem, here, is that you're using the Socratic method in a lazy fashion. You don't actually make the case, you just ask questions structured to make your opponent generate a reply to every case that you might try to make. Well, you got a lazy answer to your lazy question. —12.72.69.73 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so what makes the webpage in question qualify as a source of literary criticism? Rangek 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. And herein lie some of the consequences of Wikipedia abusing terms such as “original research”, people not paying attention to Wikipedia's peculiar use, people referring to Wikipedia policy notes without actually reading the things, and being a lazy Socrates. What the citation really illustrates is that the point about Haggard's line (like that about Johnson's) doesn't constitute “original research” as defined by Wikipedia policy because it just isn't novel. The relationship to Johnson's line and to Haggard's line is obvious. That's why the two otehr deleters have acknowledged them, and are grasping at a misrepresentation of what stated Wikipedia really is. —12.72.72.250 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it is not "original research". (I never made that arguement, anyway.) That still doesn't make the webpage in question qualify as a source for wikipedia. Rangek 14:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Futhermore, there is nothing on that website that says Asimov's quote is derivative of Haggard. The page linked is just a (short) list of simlar quotes about violence. That's all. I don't think Prof. Stepney is trying to make some kind of grandiose literary arguement about anything there. It is just a bunch of quotes. Rangek 01:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The argument simply isn't grandiose. The influences of Haggard (and of course of Johnson) are fairly transparent. (I suppose that you could ascertain whether Stepney is making the non-grandiose claim, found in the natural reading, by simply asking her.) —12.72.69.73 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought: if "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" were a quotation from Thomas Pynchon, we would rhapsodize over how he masterfully alluded both to Rider Haggard and to Samuel Johnson in one fell swoop. Far from calling him unoriginal, we'd proclaim him a genius. We'd write a thesis about it, gooshing in admiration about how Pynchon deconstructed the boundary between high and low culture. Waxing Borgesian, I'd love to imagine a Pierre Menard scenario: "Thomas Pynchon, author of Foundation." One could do the same exercise to slighly different effect with Vladimir Nabokov, too.
…whereas the fans of Asimov grasp in self-contradictory manner for reasons to erase a note that neither attack nor praised Asimov for the derivation. (—12.72.69.73 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Rangek, you say you're a professor? If I write up a literary essay explaining how Vladimir Nabokov was the real author of the Foundation trilogy, could you publish it under the aegis of your faculty website? (-; Anville 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SG-1 Asimov quote

Hi.

I was wondering why the Asimov quote in Stargate SG-1 (in the episode 200 (Stargate SG-1)) was removed from the Popular Culture section? It's more direct a reference to the man and his work than the Garfield entry... --Nerroth 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it didn't make any sense. When I read it, I thought, "The who, in the what, said what in a parody of what?" I had NO idea what you were talking about. Then the reference made my head spin. A 197x reference for something that happened in a 200x show? How can that be?
I think I know what you are getting at though, but to the casual reader it means nothing. But I don't know how to fix it with out writing a whole paragraph to explain what Wormhole X-Treme is in the context of SG-1, etc. Plus, it is not NPOV to say "provides the most poignant message of the episode".
Please feel free to try again. -- Rangek 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better? --Nerroth 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think readers of the Asimov article need to know all the details of the character making the quotation -- that Asimov was quoted is the main thing, and the long preamble distracts from it. -- JHunterJ 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is pretty good now. -- Rangek 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing "Progressive" with "Liberal"

The word "Progressive" is not an objective term. It is a political word that carries with it an implied meaning that left-wing political views are superior and are bringing society into a more progressive state of mind and being. The word "Liberal", on the other hand, is the traditional objective term used for left-wing political views. In order to maintain objectivity, I believe that this change is important. Otherwise, it will be turning Wikipedia into what could arguably be a propaganda mill. —220.213.58.80 (talk • contribs), 05:36, 25 September 2006

Actually, that's incorrect. Progressive is not merely a POV synonym for liberal. Progressivism was in fact originally an offshoot of the Republican Party! The meaning is not "we advocate progress and you don't", but rather "we advocate progressing step by step toward change rather than revolution". It is thus distinguished from radical left-wing politics by its pragmatism. That said, I would only identify Asimov with progressive politics if he himself used the word, otherwise I would use liberal. A previous version of the article said that he referred to himself as a Progressive; if that is true, then that is the correct word to use. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The quotes chosen for inclusion in the article, I feel, give the impression of Asimov as being rather self-centered or even arrogant. There are no shortage of Asimov quotes--just look at the Wikiquote page--and I think a much better selection of quotes could be chosen. Ckerr 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the impression given by the quotes is not strong enough: Asimov was extremely self-centered and arrogant. Just my 2 cents, of course. --Darkday 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In Asimov's magazines they had some letters from him that seemed surprisingly humble. However his public persona was egocentric and shamelessly self-promoting. I know some authors cultivate an egocentric and self-centered image because it draws attention to their work. A humorous son of a candy shop owner who never leaves New York and didn't date until he was 20 was probably a less desirable, if maybe truer, image for him than the image of an egocentric smart-guy.--T. Anthony 14:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Both images would be correct, except for the minor quibble that Asimov lived in Boston for many years, and certainly left New York for various reasons on many occasions, though never by plane. His only two plane trips were for an experiment for the military, and when shipping to or from Hawaii (but not the other direction). Astro jpc 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Asimov certainly travelled to conventions. I saw him in Baltimore in 1982 and in Los Angeles in 1984. He had a great sense of humor, which could switch to either hamming it up or self-deprecating depending on the situation. There's a difference between outrageous and obnoxious. I saw him signing girls' cleavage, where his wife was in line-of-sight; it was part of his schtick. But this man was intimately involved in fandom and publishing for decades; he made himself available to anybody, and any bad gossip about him would have been widely spread. Quite a lot of authors are "egocentric" and he deserved his self-acclaim more than most. Avt tor 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pynchon in the box

It jumped out at me: Thomas Pynchon "influenced" by Asimov. News to me, but the only mention of TP revealed by a text search of the article is that he relied on IA's pop-science explanation of entropy. In literary circles, this isn't what "influence" generally means. If TP somehow followed IA's literary example or aesthetic or belonged to the same circle or movement, yes. Otherwise, maybe that attribution should be re-evaluated, especially given its prominent position on the page. RLetson 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If TP read IA's description of entropy and thereby first learned about the concept, then TP was certainly influenced by IA. It doesn't necessarily have to be following a literary example, following an understanding of an aesthetic theory, or belonging to the same "movement" or "circle."69.19.14.37 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)OttoVonBirthmarck

[edit] Jenkins as source

This also jumped out: The quotation ("most sf writers since the 1950’s have been affected by Asimov, either modeling their style on his or deliberating avoiding anything like his style") from John Jenkins' amateur ("I have no training in literary criticism") website seems weak in two ways. First, it is framed as a kind of hearsay ("It has been pointed out that") with no indication of who was doing the pointing. This would not pass inspection in a freshman research paper or, I think, a newsroom. Second, it's a considerable overstatement, the sort of assertion that would be challenged by any competent scholar reviewing an essay for publication. (What's the evidence? Is there a survey of stylistic influences/anti-influences? Of author interviews and other documents?) Sorry if I seem to be the new kid picking nits, but these two items really did catch my eye immediately. RLetson 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reviewing credit Jenkins has is being very interested in reviewing Asimov. There's no reason keep any of Jenkin's stuff on this page unless some credibility and notability is demonstrated. I'll probably remove it soon if there are no objections Illuminatedwax 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Robot script

What's that link to "Hardwired" doing there? Is that supposed to be a reference to Hardwire(comic)? If not, then what does the link mean? I understand from the section that the script for I, Robot (with Will Smith) was not the same as the script developed by Harlan. But the bit describing the script used is unhelpful.70.110.214.242

[edit] History?

There is brief mention of Asimov's historical works in the main body of the aricle - might mention of such not also be appropriate in the selected bibliography, where there are currently no history works at all?

(Histories by Asimov include The Greeks, The Roman Republic, The Roman Empire, The Near East, The Dark Ages, The Shaping of England, Constantinople, The Land of Canaan, The Shaping of France, The Shaping of North America, The Birth of the United States, Our Federal Union...)

With such extensive lists of his other works in the bibliography, might a few of these, at least, not be mentioned here too?

66.66.133.188 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

Hi, I reverted User:Daqu's edit to the IPA transcription of Asimov's name, partly because it was a very surprising pronunciation, and partly because it differed from Asimov's own description of his name.

The vowels in /ˈæzɪˌmɜv/ would rhyme with my (largely British) pronunciation of Paddy Smurf. Maybe that's what the Asimov family actually uses, but I can't find any material supporting it. Asimov himself seems to have used "has him off." --Kjoonlee 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but Isaac Asimov was my uncle and I knew him since 1955, and he always pronounced his name as I changed the pronunciation to reflect. But just to be certain, before I did this I checked with both his widow Janet and his daughter Robyn, and they both agreed with me.Daqu 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have just googled and found the claim that he used "has him off, but remove the H's" as a mnemonic for pronouncing his name. This is repeated on many web pages, virtually verbatim copies of each other, but there is no original source given whatsoever. (I have often found an error of one kind or another repeated on countless web pages, the errors usually being verbatim copies of one another, and this is surely another example of that.)
My suspicion is that if Isaac ever said or wrote anything like this, he would have used "has him of, but remove the H's" -- which is exactly the way he pronounced his name as I clearly recall it, and as his widow and daughter independently confirm.Daqu 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Daqu 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) But 'as 'im of would be /ˈæzɪməv/ or /ˈæzɪˌmɑv/, and to include your description would be against the WP:NOR policy unless it's been published elsewhere by trusted sources. --Kjoonlee 12:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a good point about the current transcription not having a reliable source, though. Sadly, in such cases we have no choice but to write "a common pronunciation" instead of a correct pronunciation with a citation. --Kjoonlee 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand, though it certainly feels bizarre to have my first-person account from decades of experience with the article's subject -- and very recent telephone conversations with his widow and daughter -- have to be ignored! In any case, I may have erred when I attempted to transcribe the final vowel into IPA (using the Wikipedia article on IPA), but to be clearer, let me say that the final vowel is not a schwa or a variety of the letter "a" (as commonly used in English words), but rather what is usually called the short u sound, as it occurs in the words "overrun" or "anyone" as the last (unstressed) vowel. (Some may try to convince you that that is a schwa sound; don't listen to them!)
I will add that at least one other "trusted" source (that should not be trusted) has the same mispronunciation of "Asimov" that appeared in the article: http://www.m-w.com -- or equivalently, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (tenth and eleventh editions). Heck, they can't even get the spelling of "Isaac" right, despite my having pointed out their spelling error in an e-mail to an Associate Editor, four weeks ago on Nov. 6, 2006.Daqu 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal accounts have to be verified. I could claim I knew Asimov and that he pronounced his name "Ah-seem-ove." I'd be lying if I said that, but how could they know?--T. Anthony 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's an audio interview with Asimov: http://wiredforbooks.org/isaacasimov/index.html. He pronounces his name at 6:56 and 12:50. I leave the transliteration to IPA to those who are more familiar with it than I am.--Darkday 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
IMHO his pronunciation of "Asimov's" sounds like [ˈæzɪˌmɑvz] or [ˈæzɪˌmɐvz]; I can't decide which. --Kjoonlee 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But in either case, /ˈæzɪˌmɑv/ should be a safe phonemic representation. --Kjoonlee 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I found the source of the "has-him-of" explanation. It's from "In Memory Yet Green", Asimov's first autobiography, part I, chapter 2, section 2: To this day, I get postcards asking me how to pronounce my name with details concerning the Homeric wagers being made on various alternatives. Usually I say something like this: "There are three very simple English words: 'Has,' 'him' and 'of.' Put them together like this—'has-him-of'—and say it in the ordinary fashion. Now leave out the two h's and say it again and you have Asimov." Really! What the heck is the difficulty? --Darkday 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Darkday! (I won't say "I told you so", but I did (:-)>.)Daqu 18:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Just as a side observation, I find that the recording linked above indicates part of the problem here may be Asimov's identifiable Brooklyn accent. I found his "ov" to be halfway between his "of" and his "off" (all of which you can hear in the segment between 6:50 and 7:10). His "off", though, is distinctly more of an "awf", that is, a diphthong, whereas his "ov" and his "of" are both simple vowels. See New York Dialect#Vowels. The Midwestern "standard" of is pretty much an "əv" rather than an "ov", but if New Yorkers move their O to a diphthong, the schwa can move into the O position, making it much closer to the "ov" of his name than his "awf". For a Midwesterner like myself, "off" is a longer O but not really an "aw", which he gives a little "w" at the end. (This takes me back to the time my college friend from New York took exception to the way I said "roof" -- to her it sounded like I was imitating a dog's bark.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2007

[edit] On religious beliefs

He did not oppose genuine religious conviction in others, but vocally opposed superstitious or unfounded beliefs.

Err... this line implies that religion is neither superstition nor an unfounded belief, which is plain false. --Taraborn 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

'Tis now rephrased. Anville 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now it's much better. --Taraborn 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems in criticism section

All criticisms need to be sourced to notable commentators. It is not permitted for wikipedia editors to add there own criticisms of Asimov's work. Editors need to find sources for the Criticisms to avoid them getting chopped out. Ashmoo 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to cut the worst of it out. What's left is pretty unremarkable, except for that one block quotation from that book reviewer who didn't like Robots and Empire (a quotation I found on Lexis-Nexis way back when). Actually, I think that review is most remarkable for how thoroughly wrong it is, but I shouldn't say anything more about that here. Anville 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Unmensan

So tell me, is it true that IA turned down an honorary membership in Mensa? Did he ever dare to take the test? If so, did he pass and become a legitimate member?69.19.14.37 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MosesEzreal

According to American Mensa, he was a member. According to the IMDB bio page on Isaac Asimov, he decided to leave Mensa due to the attitudes of some members. I am a member of American Mensa, and I will say that we occasionally have a Isaac Asimov Memorial Wet T-Shirt Contest at our annual gatherings (the last contest was held in New Orleans in July 2005).--66.134.227.18 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Asimov was drafted into the US Army in late 1945 and took the Army General Classification Test. His IQ was 160 (In Memory Yet Green, chapter 38) and that qualified him for Mensa with room to spare. --208.76.104.133 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] profanity in the quotes

How can I delete the "cock taste really good" type of quotes at the end of the quotes section?

[edit] One Particular Story

(I know Wikipedia isn't an FAQ, but I've looked in a lot of places and can't figure it out...) When I was a kid, I read this short story by Issac Asimov. In it, a boy grows up, and his best friend is a robotic teddy bear. The toy was programmed by the boy's father. Anytime the boy did something bad, like lie or steal, the boy was scolded by the toy bear. Except, the bear was programmed not to stem any homicidal urges the boy might have. The boy grows up, and (I think) he was the only human alive who was still able to perform murder. Anyway the boy gets very angry that his father via the toy has brainwashed him this way, and kills both the father and the teddy bear (as well as a third character I remember nothing about).

Does this story sound familiar? Do you know the name, or in what compilation it might be found? JimmmyThePiep 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can tell you about that story is that it isn't by Asimov. --Darkday 17:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: I think I found it; "I always do what teddy says" by Harry Harrison. I think what I had was a collection of short stories from various authors, but I only remembered Isaac Asimov out of the 10 or so authors. A short description mentioned 'conditioning children', which sounds like it. JimmmyThePiep 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science humour

I just wrote the page Science humour. The final section is "Humour in science fiction". I mentioned Asimov, as well as a few other authors/works. Could you please head over, and help develop the article? Cheers, samwaltz 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

Isaac Asimov WAS Born on January 1, 1920. This is confirmed in his memoir, "I, Asimov"

Someone please change/edit it!

I don't own I, Asimov, but I have In Memory Yet Green, in which Asimov writes
   The date of my birth, as I celebrate it, was January 2, 1920. It 
could not have been later than that. It might, however, have been 
earlier. Allowing for the uncertainties of the times, of the lack of 
records, of the Jewish and Julian calendars, it might have been as 
early as October 4, 1919. There is, however, no way of finding out. 
My parents were always uncertain and it really doesn't matter.
   I celebrate January 2, 1920, so let it be.
Can someone please quote what's written in I, Asimov? --Darkday 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In "I, Asimov", it states: "I was born in Russia on January 1, 1920, but my parents emigrated to the United States, arriving on February 23, 1923. That means I have been an American by surroundings (and, five years later, in September 1928, by citizenship) since I was three years old."

At the very least, someone should make a note of the exacr date being unknown, even to Asimov.

I own both "I, Asimov" and "In Memory Yet Green". Asimov gave 2 January 1920 as his birthday. He was in perfect command of all his faculties when he wrote IMYG but he was not all there when he wrote IA, which was published posthumously anyway, so of the two IMYG is the better source. Also at the end of IA, we find a Garfield cartoon making a joke of Isaac Asimov's birthday being on the 2nd. It was a palliative to Garfield post holiday blues. (Of course, Asimov-not-all-there is a better writer than most of us any day...) Vincent 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice it being changed to red linked 1-2 format :s - having read this post I've put the quote from IMYG and doubled the cite point, as I wouldn't look for a date of birth in the infobox first, but I don't usually navigate that way round..., and having the words may help make it a non-issue for readers looking to 'correct it against their reference'. This way of viewing the d.o.b. covers the other instances, but the others won't cover this, which, as it is given by the subject of the article himself, seems eminently more preferable against (non-birth record) references.--Alf melmac 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The date in the original hardcover printing of I, Asimov is a typographical error. It was corrected in the soft cover printing. Also see http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html Isaac Lin 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to the Years

Are links to the every single individual year really necessary? Mr. Assimov's life is interesting enough that almost every third word is a link somewhere do we really need to have links to generic years as well?Padillah 15:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't see the harm. Surely there are more constructive things to do with ones time than to do any of those links.--Epeefleche 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The harm of overlinking is that important terms and concepts become less obvious. That's why single years are almost never linked, and why generic concepts shouldn't belinked either. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's one "are they necessary", one who-would-bother-to-follow-them-all and one overlinking-is-bad. No comments in support. So I've removed all year links. -- Sean Martin 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I removed these en bloc from the article. Only one is sourced; many of them are at wikiquote, and some are sourced there. Some of them (particularly "the last resource of the incompetent") should be integrated into the article.

  • "I don't fear computers, I fear the lack of them"
  • "When asked what I would do if my doctor told me I had only six months to live, I answered, 'I'll just type faster.'"
  • "Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers."
  • "Night was a wonderful time in Brooklyn in the 1930s. Air conditioning was unknown except in movie houses, and so was television. There was nothing to keep one in the house. Furthermore, few people owned automobiles, so there was nothing to carry one away. That left the streets and the stoops. The very fullness served as an inhibition to crime."
  • "What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics. What I want to be remembered for is no one book, or no dozen books. Any single thing I have written can be paralleled or even surpassed by something someone else has done. However, my total corpus for quantity, quality and variety can be duplicated by no one else. That is what I want to be remembered for," September 20, 1973, Yours, Isaac Asimov, page 329.
  • "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." as Salvor Hardin.
  • "Never let your sense of morals stop you from doing what is right" as Salvor Hardin.
  • "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' - but 'That's funny...'"
  • "In a good cause there are no failures, only delayed successes".
  • "There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere"

[edit] Removal of my points

Asimov's dislike of religion is on record, and his disdain for farmers is very manifest in much of what he wrote. I object to the removal of my points about him, since they can easily be ascertained from his own writings.

Ojevindlang 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is felt that your "points" constituted Original Research. --Orange Mike 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If "it is on record", then cite that record. As for his writings, what you really need is a secondary source to cite in which an established critic or some such does the synthesis. It's not that "we" think you are wrong, it's just the way one writes an encyclopedia. Rangek 02:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Either that or quote straight from the books. The episode were one of Asimov's rather too frequent benevolent and wise robots poisons the Earth to get rid of religion is in one of the later Foundation stories. Frankly, I can't rememeber offhand which one, though the episode made a deep (and unfavourable) impression on me. It's in one of those books where Asimov tried to integrate the Foundation trilogy, the robot stories and the stories about Elijah Baley into one unified whole and, in my opinion, failed dismally. The pieces simply don't fit together. As for Asimov attempting to establish a future history, of the kind to be found in the works of Cordwainer Smith and Poul Anderson, I think that is obvious. Actually, I will put back that mention because I really don't need to quote an established critic to mention the obvious.

Ojevindlang 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is your opinion, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. I edited your addition to remove your opinion. Is that acceptable? Rangek 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deserts/desserts

Okay, Rangek, I bow to your citations on this one. I must note, however, that no one in the universe other than an academic would really use "deserts" in this instance. That said, Asimov was an academic, if perhaps not quite that much a stickler... BPK 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is not a matter under dispute; "just desserts" is a classic error, found in all the guides to correct use of the English language. No competent copy editor is going to let that one slip through, any more than they would allow misuse of the apostrophe for plurals or other obvious but common mistakes. --Orange Mike 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's a classic error, it's simply because the logic is all on the side of the error, not the correction. The system of apostrophe usage is an actual system that there is no excuse for not learning. The "deserts" issue is a singular anomoly that flies in the face of common sense. I have no doubt but than in a few more decades the guides will finally catch up to ordinary usage.
Ideally, the codification of language usage is descriptive, not prescriptive. My sense is that most "errors" like these in fact begin as errors of description, which hardens into prescription only because the users go right along doing what they've always done. Elites hate being ignored.
Anyway, isn't the only reason we're still debating this that our own egos are involved? I've already conceded the issue. That doesn't mean you're likely to convince me that the rule makes sense, any more than I'm likely to convince you that it's ridiculous. BPK 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MST3K

I noted an absence of "References in popular culture" for IA. I think that's especially sad given a very funny satire of him done by Mystery Science Theatre 30000 :) . 169.237.44.111 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letters and Postcards

The article said he had an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards (which would average to well over 3 per day every day of his entire life. This number seems an overestimate, and I found a source that says 9,000 (rather than 90,000) - so I changed it to 9,000 and cited the source (some museum). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackberrylaw (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

90000 seems quite believable to me. There are examples of literary men with even more letters. Well the number is mentioned in the book of letters compiled by his brother. And even I got a postcard. And am very happy to have it.--Liedzeit (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

I have removed the quote attribtued to Asimov from the article. This quote, "It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly" is a widely published misquote of a statement not from Asimov himself, but from the character Wienis, the Prince Regent of Anacreon in the novel Foundation, as found in Part III, The Mayors (ISBN 0553293354, Bantam, 2004, p.149). Please do not keep adding it to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1956 or 1965

The article includes a picture of Asimov, allegedly from 1965. However, if you look at the corresponding Russian article [1], the same picture is dated 1956. Which is correct? --Oz1cz (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see it's been changed now. :-) --Oz1cz (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petrovichi, Russia

The article previously said that Asimov was born "in Petrovichi shtetl of Smolensk Oblast, RSFSR (now Russia)". Early in 2007 someone changed the parenthetical note to read: "(now Mahilyow Province, Republic of Belarus)".

I am fairly sure this is a mistake and I'm going to revert it now.

First, in chapter 1 of In Memory Yet Green, Asimov says that the first time he learned the exact location of the place was when he looked it up in the 1967 Times Atlas, which puts it at "53.58° North Latitude and 32.10° East Longitude". Unfortunately, in British usage what looks like a decimal point can just be a separator. Positions in the Times Atlas are actually given in degrees and minutes separated by a dot. Asimov either chose to use the same, inadvertently misleading, notation or else he misinterpreted the dots he read as being decimal points. The correct interpretation is 53°58' N, 32°10' E.

This is confirmed by Google Maps, which, if you can read Cyrillic letters, covers the area in fine enough scale that you can see that the coordinates (as rounded to the nearest whole minute) are about a half-minute off.

It is also confirmed by text nearby in the chapter, which is based on his father's recollections from the 19th century. At one time in pre-revolutionary days, Jews were allowed to live in White Russia (alias Byelorussia and now Belarus) but not in Russia itself, but a number of were living just across the border in Russia as illegal immigrants. To avoid a crackdown against his Jewish tenants, a landowner took it on himself to move the sign marking the border, putting Petrovichi into White Russia (where it would indeed have been in Magilyov province, now spelled Mahilyow) -- and he got away with it. But after the revolution, Asimov says, the correct border was restored; so Petrovichi was indeed in Russia (RSFSR) when he was born.

In addition, Asimov mentions Khislavich as one of the nearby towns his father used to mention. You will find it in Google Maps, spelled Khislavichi, also in Russia and 20 km north of Petrovichi.

So Petrovichi was certainly in Russia when Asimov was born. But is it now? The passage I just decribed was written in about 1978, and the border could have changed since then.

But I haven't found any evidence that it has.

If someone has an up-to-date official source they can check regarding the border location today, that would be a good idea.

Now, what happens if you misread 53.58° N 32.10° E as being a position in degrees and decimal parts? Then you get a location about 20 km on the other side of the border, that's what-- in fact, it's in Mahilyow Province, Belarus. I think this misreading is the source of the error. Until recently that notation was used in Ed Seiler's Isaac Asimov FAQ page (he's fixed it now) and on Wikipedia's Petrovichi page (I've fixed that). Other people may well have made the same mistake, making this one of those facts where erroneous information is widely reproduced.

Further confusing things are three other facts. (1) For Belarus, Google Maps only shows major features and not villages the size of Petrovichi, so we can't tell from that source whether there actually is a place at 53.58° N 32.10° E (using degrees and decimal parts).

And (2) other Internet sources show that Belarus does have several places named Petrovichi or very similar spellings. The first one I found actually is in Mahilyow Province, but is at the other end of it, 300 km from the Russian border. At least one other is in that province as well.

And (3) the article in the Russian Wikipedia also appears to state that Petrovichi is now in Belarus. Not that I can read more than the occasional word of Russian, but I know the alphabet and the parenthetical notation looks as if it was copied from (or to) the English page. Further, it cites as source a Russian-language web page that also appears to have a similar parenthetical note. You would expect Russian-speakers to have a better idea of the Russian border -- but I can't tell if that page was edited by people who actually knew, or by, say, Russian-speaking Americans.

I feel the evidence of Asimov's book, and the absence of evidence that the border has moved, are sufficient to revert the change in the English-language Wikipedia, just saying "(now Russia)". But if it is wrong here, it's also wrong in the German and the Russian Wikipedia and I don't know how many other languages, and I hope someone will pursue finding them all and fixing them. Conversely, if it's me that's wrong and the border has moved, I hope someone will cite a definitive source and revert my reversion.

--208.76.104.133 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2008

[edit] Advanced formatting of TOC

13-Jan-2008: I have triggered advanced article formatting to wrap text around the long Table-of-Contents (TOC) box, to shorten the page. Over 99% of large articles on Wikipedia use the default formatting that prevents text beside the TOC box, but leaves a large text-gap in the area. A wikitable plus word-joining has been used to allow right-side text to wrap along the TOC box, without splitting text into one-word lines. Three constructs are used in advanced formatting: (1) a wikitable TOC, (2) a left-side image, and (3) word-joining:

{| align=left
| __TOC__<!--wrap text beside Table-of-Contents.-->
|&nbsp; <!--space between TOC and text lines.-->
|}
[[Image:Pic iroberts1.jpg|left|thumb|120px|Asimov wrote on science
  & fiction]]<!--image here avoids overlaying text with boxes.-->

Most&nbsp;of&nbsp;Asimov's<!--at left image, force minimum text-wrap-->

The wikitable (enclosed by "{|" and "|}") narrows the Table-of-Contents box as a left-side table ("align=left"), allowing text to wrap along the right of the TOC. However, wikitables can overlap nearby text during the text-wrapping, so a left-side image is added to wake up the observance of box margins, keeping text clearly between the TOC-box and the righthand infobox. Smaller screens might force text to wrap as one-word-per-line, so word-joining is used to connect the 3 words "Most_of_Asimov's" as the minimum-width phrase between the TOC & infobox. If those 3 words won't fit between the boxes, then that text slides down to appear below the infobox, effectively forcing the whole paragraph to be typeset into a larger area, but auto-wrapping depending on how wide the browser window is narrowed. When those 3 constructs are used (together), the auto-typesetting is almost magic, auto-shifting the text, boxes, and image placement, depite switching between tiny or high-resolution screens. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently removed the wrap text coding without providing a reason in the edit summary. Is there concensus to returning the coding or a reason why it should not be returned? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 22-March-2008: I have restored the text-wrapping using the 13Jan08 techniques above, but using template {{LeftTOCwrap}}. Removal of advanced formatting is typical due to wikirot, what I call the natural progression of edits after hacking, vandalism and reverts. Every 2 months, perform a "sanity check" on prior articles to see what has been hacked. "Wikipedia life is messy - clean it up" just like rooms open to the public must be cleaned periodically. Few people will test an edited article to ensure formatting on wide screens with a hidden TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashkenazi Jew?

I'd not heard this before and a (admittedly) moderate search of the web turns up no mention of it (other than the entry here in Wikipedia. Damn, but them googly spiders is fast!). I'll have to check thru my copies of I. Asimov and In Memory Yet Green tonight. In meantime, can anyone provide a reference that clarifies this? Sean Martin (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

It seems to me that the current infobox image should be changed. It is adequate, but Asimov's iconic look is with the sideburns, and that picture could throw people off. Is it the only fair use image available? Mightn't we be able to come up with a rational for this or maybe this? Just a suggestion. Cerebellum (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The recently added image is also being challenged as not actually a free image. I would prefer an image with the sideburns.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the image with the Galaxy with the description "Asimov writs science fiction" seems useless and unnecessary

[edit] Letters

Per this mention it seems likely that 90,000 is more likely correct; it mentions 45,000 existing letters, which may exclude postcards and correspondence that doesn't survive. I don't claim this as a reliable source, but the one used to correct this to 9,000 seems no more reliable, and to judge by what it says may even have taken it's info from Wikipedia and accidentally dropped a zero from the 90,000. Mike Christie (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll change it back. Cerebellum (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofit topic-year headers

17-March-2008: I have grouped the older topics above using level-1 headers as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. In sorting years, I had moved a topic to 25-Sep-2006 and removed 70 line breaks in topic "Petrovichi, Russia". -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section: Unsourced opinions

The criticism section contains a lot of unsourced opinion. Editors need to refrain from adding there own criticisms or defenses of Asimov. Only opinions from notable sources are allowed in wikipedia articles. There is still more there, but I chopped this bit for starters:

This is perhaps slightly overstating the issue given that, for example, The Naked Sun (1957) deals with social issues as a core part of its central setting and motivation, depicts genetic engineering in the guise of eugenics as a fundamental part of that society, presents the reader with inverted arcologies where a single person is the focal point of the artificial environment as well as a hero who hails from a "normal" arcology on earth. Meanwhile, totally artificial birth, although not specifically cloning, is the aim of the leaders of the society, sexual want is the major driving force of the main female character (albeit veiled in 1950s sensibilities), and the entire story is used to make the point that too much order is ultimately a stagnant dead end to be avoided.

Ashmoo (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

Asimov was known as the Grand Master, the world Maestro of science fiction and and the Good Doctor. Are any of these titles in here? If so, they should be moved up to the first part of the page, along with the sentence about the "Big Three".