Talk:Isaac Asimov

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Isaac Asimov is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Foundation series

After writing the original Foundation Trilogy, Asimov abandoned the story, and didn't come back until the 1980s, where a considerable monetary offer from the publishing house was his main incentive (or at least so he tells in the Preface to the book). In this and later books, Asimov tries to bind together in a coherent whole a great deal of his fiction output, creating a future history of humanity.

... but creating rather sloppy and contrived joins between his older books, in the opinion of many readers. I think Asimov's Mysteries deserve some sort of a mention too. -- Tarquin

Martian Way

Resolve Martian Way link as it provides a route back to McCarthyism. Alan Peakall 17:55 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Nightfall

If Nightfall is so wellknown why have most people never heard of it and, unlike other Asimov writings, it doesnt even have an article? Vera Cruz

Nightfall is one of the most famous science fiction short stories ever. I am sorry you have never heard of it. Rmhermen 17:57 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

That is immaterial...it is pov to say such and such is the most famous, especially when he has a number of clearly famous writings. Vera Cruz

I suspect that most people who have heard of Asimov are more likely to have heard of I, Robot or Foundation more than Nightfall. but the first is a book of short stories, and the second is a series of books, so I don't think it's incorrect to say that Nightfall is his most famous single story. It seems ludicrous to have an edit war over such an issue, if another editor comes along and suggests some other story is more famous then it might be worth of debate. I suppose books sales could confirm or deny the fact, but it seems appropriate to bow to the experience and knowledge of Tarquin, Rmhermen and Tannin on this issue. Mintguy

Why would it seem appropriate to bow to pov? Vera Cruz

Stop being silly, Lir. Unless it's contested, it's not POV. --Eloquence 18:10 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, not that I want to but in, but: I do not entirely agree with Eloquence that something is NPOV unless it is contested. I do agree that it is NPOV if there is a consensus, but I think VC is asking for evidence of that consensus which is fair. I believe that IA himself wrote somethere that Nightfall was either the most widely reprinted of his stories, or the one most often refered to in fan letters, or something like this. Surely, such a quote form IA would make this part of the article stronger. So: Does anyone know what I am talking about? If anyone has any of the various collecxted stories of IA in which he wrote introductions or afterwards (I do not) could you please check and see if he wrote anything to this effect? Thanks, Slrubenstein

Something like that would be nice, but could be very hard to find, and shouldn't be required. If Nightfall is his most famous short story, then lets just say so. That's not being un-neutral, that's just stating the way things are. --Camembert

You're kiding, right? You say , "if Nightfall is his best story," and that "if" is what all this discussion is about. How do we know that it was his most famous? This is not a trivial question. Slrubenstein

I did not say anything about it being his "best" story. If the article had claimed that it was his best story, then I'd agree such as statement is inappropriate. I'm talking about it being his most famous, which is a different thing. And I'm not kidding. What about a statement like "The most famous person called Beethoven ever to have lived was the composer, Ludwig van"? Is that neutral? I think it is. It's certainly true. Can I prove it is true? Probably not without a lot of money and a big team of market reseachers - maybe there's a tremendously popular Russian footballer called Sergei Beethoven. I agree it's better to give some backup to these things where possible, but I don't think it's useful to demand such backup and remove such statements without it unless there is some evidence that the statement in question isn't true (and there doesn't seem to be any evidence in this case). --Camembert

The frontpage of the official site doesnt mention Nightfall, although it does mention Foundation and I Robot several times.

But somebody already said that I Robot and Foundation are not short stories, so I don't see what relevance that has. -Camembert

Nightfall was included in the the anthology Scinece Fiction Hall of Fame, which was compiled by a vote of the Science Fiction Writers of America. (Or whatever it is called: I have the book at home, & I'm at work, where I'm not supposed to be surfing the web.) I'd say that justifies stating "Nightfall" is the most famous story he has written. -- 134.134.136.1

The issue at hand is whether Nightfall is Asimov's best-known short storry. This is quite a claim and should be supported with evidence. I got the following off of someone's webpage, using a google search:

OK, here we have the big "N". Asimov was always befuddled by this story's enormous success, and I must confess to sharing his befuddlement. It's among his most popular stories, it's been turned into a so-so novel (see Nightfall) and a horrible movie, it's been satirized in a Maureen Birnbaum story, it was voted the best sf story of all time in more than one poll—but it's far from Asimov's best. Sure, it's his best prior to about 1945 (which isn't saying much), and one of his better stories of his career—but I would rate quite a bit higher—"The Mule", "And Now You Don't", "The Last Question", "The Ugly Little Boy", "The Dead Past", "Evidence", "The Bicentennial Man" to name a few off the top of my head.

Clearly, whoever wrote this does not think Nightfall is Asimov's best or best-known story. But this mini-review does acknosledge that several polls name it as the best, and that it was enormously popular according to Asimov himself. This is not the evidence I would want to include in the article to support the claim, but for VC and all other doubters, take this as an indication that the claim that Nightfal iss Asimov's most famous is at least a plausible claim. Slrubenstein

It's clear he doesn't think it's his best, but the article didn't make such a claim that I'm aware of. I doesn't seem to bring up the question of what his most famous story is (beyond recognising this as "among the most famous", which doesn't say much one way or the other).

A quick web search for Nightfall reveals such lines as: "widely considered the best science fiction short story ever" and "y early April, he finished the story, titled "Nightfall", and the history of science fiction was changed forever. With "Nightfall," Asimov triggered a spark of awareness in the publishing community that science fiction could be more than Buck Rogers comic books."

Also "Nightfall is widely considered Isaac Asimov's first literary success. As Isaac Asimov recalls in the preface of his short anthology Nightfall and Other Stories, "The writing of 'Nightfall' was a watershed in my professional career ... I was suddenly taken seriously and the world of science fiction became aware that I existed. As the years passed, in fact, it became evident that I had written a 'classic'." Asimov himself republished Nightfall at least seven times and expanded it into a book with Siverberg. Rmhermen 18:31 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection to "among his most famous stories" or "argued to be his most famous story" but "is his most famous" is nothing but POV, at the very least try to use, "his best-selling story". Vera Cruz

POV isn't a synonym for opinion if the opinion is the consensus. If the consensus opinion is that it IS his most famous story (as it certainly appears to be) then what the hell are you getting so het up about? Mintguy

Mintguy, if someone is getting worked up about this, then by definition there is no consensus! Slrubenstein

I meant consensus of informed opinion. not a Wikipedian who can give no opinion of an alternative story. Mintguy

It's not so much POV as it is careless writing, making an unproveable statement. Such wording as "one of the most ... " is almost always better than saying "most" "first" "best" "least" and other superlatives. Better to stick with comparatives. In a case like this, however, it might be even better not to make such a fuss.Ortolan88

Basically, I agree with Ortolan. In any case, it's not worth arguing this much over. --Camembert

I think it makes a lot of sense for an encyclopedia article to be clear about evidence and attribution -- sentences like, "according to x, Asimov's most famous story," or "according to y, Asimov's best story." Slrubenstein

Why are we even wasting time over this? VC has managed to turn a non-issue into a page of debate, and even has a few of us semi-convinced! Talk about trolling! -- Tarquin 20:00 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Talk about your POV regarding how famous something is...Vera Cruz

Vera, I have already asked you what the opposing POV, if any is: for the 2nd time, what is his most famous short story, according to you? And, according to who else? It's not enough to be a lone nutcase (TM). I can claim my POV is that Asimov was a bug-eyed space monster, it's still not going to make it into the article. You are wasting people's time. Either grow up or get lost. -- Tarquin 20:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

You continue to refrain from posting any sources to augment your assertation that the best-known work by Isaac Asimov is Nightfall. Vera Cruz

Do you have sources for his date of birth? Because if not, let's remove them!!! The nightfall thing is not MY assertation. It was there long before you decided to wade in and muck around. You plainly do not understand what we are trying to do here; you don't understand what NPOV is, you've elsewhere been accused of not understanding what is suitable material for an encyclopedia. The question is: are you doing this on purpose to annoy people, or are you genuinely confused? Since any attempt to try and explain matters to you leads to irritation and circular arguments, a growing body of Wikipedians are tending towards the former. -- Tarquin 20:31 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Getting upset? Unfortunately, POV has no place here. It is an opinion that Nightfall is the most famous. Thank you for your threats and insults, they greatly increased the validity of your position. Plz call me a troll again, that way nobody will take me seriously and you won't have to actually discuss the issue. Vera Cruz

How do you propose we measure and quantify "fame"? We could write "widely held to be his most famous", but really, that just sounds insipid. Again -- you do not understand what the NPOV policy actually means. -- Tarquin 20:42 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

How about "perhaps his most famous..."? It's what I used on the Larry Niven page. I don't think it really matters, except that I happen to agree with Ortolan's point above that we should avoid sweeping statements without proof. Short of polling everyone in the world, we should hedge. For the record, I think that his "The Last Question" is at least as famous as "Nightfall". -- DrBob 20:57 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed... Vera Cruz

How does one measure and quantify fame? No wonder I deleted the statement as POV! If you would like to speak about books sold or profits earned, that is one thing, but I doubt you or anyone else has ever done a global polling of who is familiar with what story by Asimov. Vera Cruz

Try Google. It gives a good impression of awareness when the titles are reasonably unique. --Eloquence 20:56 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

So you want the article to say, "According to Wikipedia's interpretation of Google's raw data, Asimov's best known story was Nightfall?" Vera Cruz

Everybody agrees that "Nightfall" is the most famous writing of Asimov.

Ericd

But obviously everybody doesn't...

Everybody agrees except VC who can't give an alternative. Mintguy

Not so! The title rings only a vague bell for me, too, to be honest, and I've read a few dozen short stories by Asimov. No, seriously! Admittedly I haven't got a very good memory, but even so... I'd have guessed "The Bicentennial Man", myself. Maybe which story is most famous depends on one's nationality, age group, and so on. It would depend on what books were being talked about during one's youth, and so on. And, oh look! I've just got an e-mail from my brother. He says "The Bicentennial Man" too. Independent confirmation. ;) Can't we just say, "His best-known stories include..."? -- Oliver PEREIRA

In fact, if I may interject, I completely disagree that "Nightfall" is famous at all. There is no doubt in my mind that "I, Robot" or "Foundation" would come much ahead of "Nightfall" in any poll of the general population. Quoting a magazine article or similar bragging about how Nightfall is great is one thing, but asserting that it's most famous is patently false. Loisel 21:18 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

As I already stated. I robot is a book of short stores and Foundation is a series of books. Mintguy

so? Dividing his books into categories based on length and then by popularity is a ridiculous notion. Vera Cruz

Dude, anything in the Foundation trilogy or the Robots trilogy would come ahead of Nighfall. Loisel 21:24 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Also hold on a minute mr wiseguy, the first book in the trilogy is in fact called Foundation. Loisel 21:28 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I agree, my guess is Foundation would come out on top. Vera Cruz

Uncle Ed's compromise

his perhaps best-known story is "Nightfall" (1941), which is described in Bewildering Stories, issue 8, as one of "the most famous science-fiction stories of all time"

Now see how that is NPOV...? Vera Cruz

It meets the NPOV criteria, if (and only if) no one disputes that Bewildering Stories called it "one of the most famous, etc." Just like an article about any of several recent U.S. Republican presidents could say: "many people regard him as having caused irreparable damage to the world". The Wikipedia wouldn't be labelling him as a damage-doer; rather, it would report that many people consider him a damage doer. This is a key point, and can be used to "unlock" many future situations where Wikipedians feel locked into an edit war. --Uncle Ed

"His best-known story" is superior to "his perhaps best-known story" in every case save where actual and reasonable doubt exists. It is important not to cave into pig-headed idiocy from a known and deliberate troll. By insisting on removing an informative and non-controversial statement, we would be (by a very small but measurable amount) reducing the quality of Wikipedia. Despite having read a great deal of science fiction in my misspent youth, I couldn't care less about which which is Asimov's most famous short story. I do care about the quality of Wikipedia articles, and about the deliberate waste of large amounts of my time, your time, and the time of many other useful contributors who could be doing edits of real value instead of responding to this idiocy, which is merly the most recent of a long, long series of mindless trolls. Tannin 21:32 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

PS: Loisel: the other works you mention are indeed more famous, but they are not short stories. Tannin

Tarquin you are very rude. Vera Cruz

- Vera, since you're replying beneath Tanninn's text, I wonder if you've got the two of us mixed up. (I do too. I skim-read Recent Changes and when I see "Tannin" in the list I think "when did I edit that?"...) But anyway ... it seems Tannin and I both think you're a pig-headed idiot. And I suppose that makes us both rude ;-) -- Tarquin 23:26 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I Robot is made of several short stories. Ericd

I haven't followed the entire discussion in detail, but I do observe that Nightfall is mentioned in the article twice. The first mention seems fine, the second mention seems out of place and a duplicate somehow. - Why not remove the second mention? -- SGBailey 22:08 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ericd

Quotes

I think the Asimov quotes should be moved to the Wikiquote page for Asimov (http://quote.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov), with a link in the External links section. Ausir 18:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added those back (perhaps the list should be shorter, though I'm happy with the current length). The reason is that wikiquote and the encyclopedia are different works and someone with a copy of the encyclopedia may not have a copy of wikiquote available (notably places like the school in South Africa which has an offline mirror of Wikipedia, or others with similar cost considerations or who just have only the encyclopedia CD or book). Linking to our related works for more information is good, removing things completely from here when they belong here, isn't. While most of us have excellent internet links, we do need to remember that the links aren't always as easy to follow as they are for us. Jamesday 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Science fiction and science fact

IMO all listed books are popular science. If you think some of them are not of this category, please put them into, e.g., other. Asimov's contribution in popularizing science is considerable, and deserves separate sections. Mikkalai 23:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that many of his books are collections of short non-fiction pieces originally published separately. Some are on science, but some aren't. He also wrote biography, history, and other subjects. I've read Opus 100, for example, and it is definitely a hodge-podge created to celebrate the fact that it was Asimov's 100th published book. Now that I think about it, I don't even think Opus 100 is all non-fiction. From the title, I strongly doubt that Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts is only about science.

The problem is that I can't tell which are which without picking them all up and looking through them. That's why I wanted to change the heading back to "Non-fiction." Isomorphic 20:02, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMO, Opus 100 is the only suspicious book in the present list. If someone can move some other to "Other", he is welcome. But to leave the article without mentioning that Asimov was an outstanding author in popular science as well was really bad thing. Mikkalai 02:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Grammar gripe

"Took a Ph.D." seems like bad english, and usually you say what you got your doctoreate in philosophy in, i.e. a Ph.D. in economics, a Ph.D. in psychology etc.

As well I compiled a seemingly complete list of his works, if someone would like to format it also here: Isaac_Asimov_Complete_Bibliography . --ShaunMacPherson 20:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In point of fact, it isn't bad English and it is a commonly used phrasing in the United States. I have also seen it many times in writings from Britain, and suspect it is more a more common usage in the U.K. than the U.S. It occasionally sounds slightly pretentious. Especially when speaking about one's self and omitting the field of specialty. But most of all it is very much in keeping with how Asimov would often write about himself. He would have been the last to deny he had a large ego and often featured this aspect of his personality in a breezy and self deprecating way that was simultaneously self promoting. He somehow managed to make this come off as charming, although from many other people it would have seemed grating and repulsive.

Quantity of output

I believe I heard that Asimov had more words published than any other author in the English language. Is this verifiably true?

Bob Silverberg, another S.F. writer, probably rivals Isaac's word count, or exceeds it, as he wrote hundreds of semi-porn novels under various names, as well as other stuff that is basically unknown to his regular readers. I've also read obits over the last 10 years of two or three other writers who were unknown to me but who wrote close to a thousand pulp novels in various fields. It may well be that no one else has written as many serious words as Isaac, though....Hayford Peirce 20:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mensa

Asimov was a reluctant member of mensa? Then he was almost certainly a "termite", one of the participants in Lewis Termans grand study of high-iq people. Lewis Terman never revealed their identities, but he revealed some of their occupations, and one was "a famous science-fiction writer". Couldn't really have been anyone else at that time, could it? This would also explain his membership in an organization he disliked. -- 158.38.141.11

In his autobiography, he described them as intellectually combative - he was famous, so everyone decided to take a run at him. That's why he didn't enjoy it. →Raul654 13:25, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I was invited to a Mensa "party." Intellectually combative is an astute description of about 99% of the people I met there. In fact the only guy there that I had any fun with roamed through the crowd and could often be heard saying (loudly) "I'm sooooo impressed." It was as if I had to prove to each and every one of them that I merited the invitation. I declined to join on those very grounds. I'm happy to hear that Isaac Asimov came up with such a succinct description of that bunch.

Fantastic article by the way. Absolutely beautiful!--Wjbean 05:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Book count

Asimov's books counts are somewhat artificial; his publishers knew they had a good thing. So we get a lot of different, recycled collections.

However, the one which really made me angry was the book (but at least 4 books in his book count) published as Understanding Physics, Volume 1 and Understanding Physics, Volume 2 and Understanding Physics, Volume 3 ; then it was all cobbled together and republished as Asimov on Physics. What really made me see red about this was the fact that all of these books were liberally laced with cross references. Not only would you have "see p. 37" as a cross-reference entirely within one of the volumes of Understanding Physics, but you'd als have things like a cross-reference in volume 1 saying "see vol. 3 p. 48" (this isn't necessarily the exact format which appeared there, but it was along those lines).

However, when they slammed them all together into Asimov on Physics the pages (at least the ones that were in vol. 2 and 3) got new page numbers. But guess what! The publishers had been in such a hurry to push up that book count, that they hadn't bothered to go back and fix all those internal cross-reference so that they worked with the new pagination in the new book. Gene Nygaard 07:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone notice that it says he published works in every dewey decimal section but philosophy on the top, but then says just every section at the bottom?

I have removed the latter (because I know for a fact that the former is correct). →Raul654 03:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Turning pages carefully

Anyone else think the comment on Asmiov learning how not to damage magazines that were to be sold in his parents' shop is interesting enough to be re-included? (assuming it's true; not something I've come across before). AdamW 12:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recall reading some autobiographical material about his boyhood; he talked about reading pulp fiction in his parents' shop -- carefully, of course. Mmmm, that was in an anthology he lent his name to, of pulp fiction of that era, interspersed with said autobio; wish I could remember the name... something Golden Age something... — Xiong (talk) 07:35, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Asmiov was a biochemist

This was removed on the grounds that just studying biochemistry at university didn't make him a biochemist. Didn't he start out as a professor but leave to pursue writing full time? And didn't he write biochemistry text books? - AdamW 19:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If he practiced biochemistry to any significant extent in his career, we can call him a biochemist. If not, well then why would you? I don't think writing books about a subject is enough. Am I a mountain climber if write books about mointain climbing, but never actually spend much time on a mountain? ike9898 19:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would consider getting a PhD was a significant amount of time as a "practising" biochemist in itself.

I'm almost certain he carried on (at Columbia?) for some years after getting his PhD. I'm sure somebody can confirm this (or otherwise). As for writing books, I agree that writing a book "about" biochemistry (a popular science book, say) doesn't require one to be a biochemist. After all, Asimov wrote at least one popular science book on mathematics and we wouldn't call him a mathematician. But to have the depth of knowledge to write a useful text book on biochemist would require one to be a biochemist in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't think much of a text book in any field I work in that was written by someone who had never worked in the field. Would you want to rely on a manual for mountain climbing written by someone who hadn't climbed a mountain themselves? AdamW 20:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. He not only earned his PhD, he taught biochemistry at Boston University. That certainly makes him a biochemist. So I am replacing the reference. --Blainster 22:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from Asimov's New Guide to Science, he stated his contribution to the field in a footnote: Isaac Asimov was the first to recognize that Strontium 90 was the most dangerous isotope present in radioactive fallout, because strontium is absorbed into the bones just like calcium, and with a half-life of 28 years, will emit radiation at strong levels throughout the lifetime of the victim. I don't know if he ever wrote a scientific paper on this. McPoodle 05:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Public speaking

I was surprised to see not one word about his public speaking. It was apparently a large part of his professional life, if one is to believe the frequent allusions in his F&SF essays. Lefty 20:13, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Beliefs and politics

Quoting the article:

"Isaac Asimov was a humanist and a rationalist. He did not oppose genuine religious conviction in others but was against superstitious or unfounded beliefs."

The linked-to article on superstition says that faith-based beliefs are superstitious, so this comment seems to be claiming that faith-based religion is not "genuine", and that religious belief should be based strictly on evidence. Surely that's far from NPOV?66.141.42.56 21:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not at all far from NPOV if Mr. Asimov said it himself. And since the article is about Mr. Asimov...--Wjbean 05:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FARC

I believe this article is good, but not quite complete enough to meet featured article standards. Top of my head, there are at least three topics that should be added.

In no particular order.

Asimov was a very influential SF editor as well as writer. His two-volume collection (he added several more volumes over later years) of The Hugo Winners circa 1970, with gossipy and funny introductions to each story was almost certainly the most widely read anthology of SF short stories for at least a decade, and possibly remains so to this day. The fact that he was chosen as the editor for the official anthologies of the stories that won the most important award in SF says a lot about the regard his fellow SF authors held for Asimov. (Okay, so either the Hugos OR the Nebulas or the most important award in SF, but my point still stands. :-)

This article could use more information and emphasis on Asimov's achievements and influence as a writer of science and technology books for the lay audience. There isn't enough of this, compared to the larger weight of matter about his SF achievements. For instance, there's no mention of his dominance of the science sections of popular bookstores, nor of how frequently he was a guest on television news and talk shows about science, especially concerning space exploration (he was vigorously in favor of space exploration).

Asimov was also very influential in SF writing circles (and mystery writing, AFAIK) in informal ways, through friendships and social networking. For instance, he was the de facto chief for many, many years of the Trapdoor Spiders Club, a monthly dinner gathering of a few dozen people - mostly SF writers, but some scientists and others. This group also served loosely as an inspiration for his series of mystery stories revolving around "The Black Widow Club". And of course, Asimov was a busy correspondent and friend with many figures in the SF world.

I feel qualified enough to recognize the need for these additions, but not qualified enough to write them, else I would be bold and do so.

FWIW, Asimov gets his wish of being remembered more for his entire corpus of work than for any single book or series of books, at least with me. :->

-L (01:47, 24 Mar 2005)

Image

Missing image
AsimovOnThrone.png

(Rowena Morrill)

Somewhere -- and since seeing it, I've forgotten where, found it again, and forgotten it again, sorry -- Somebody complained that this article did not have a nice image of the Good Doctor. (If anyone knows where that comment was made, please to copy it here where it belongs, before these words.)

I got in touch with SF/F illustrator Rowena, who very graciously has licensed a small PNG of her painting of Dr. Asimov. I have preserved the former image and moved it to breathe a little life into the text at "Quotes". — XiongMissing image
Xiong2char.png
Image:Xiong2char.png

talk 00:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Readings and references?

No offense, but that section title is entirely ambiguous as to which resources were properly used as references and which were not. If all sources were indeed used to fact check or add material to the article, the section should simply be called references. Readings could mean anything including a list of resources that were not consulted by the page's authors at all. This ambiguity is intellectually dishonest. What also led me to discuss this was the external links section was simply renamed to the above, making it unlikely, though certainly not impossible, that all were used properly. Please separate those that can be confirmed to have been used properly into a references section, and those that were not used as references into either further reading or external links. Also external links used as references should be formatted according to the rules for webpages (not from periodicals) as shown on Wikipedia:Cite sources. In summary I am inclined to vote remove on WP:FARC because there could be as few as 1 actual reference used. Thanks - Taxman 12:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles with sections like this. The ambiguity is much more likely due to emulation of others or not being aware of the convention for references. The Wiki Cite Sources article even recommends identifying good references whether they are used or not. One needn't jump to the conclusion that anyone is being "intellectually dishonest". Better to educate than berate. --Blainster 23:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, no intent to berate, sorry. But it is improper for the reasons above, and I've also given a way to sort out the issue. I was hoping someone could point out some that were used as references. If not it really should be renamed back and some of those or others should be properly used to fact check the material in the article. I will do that if no one knows for sure which of those resources were used as references. - Taxman 03:34, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

A quick read-through indicates that all the books by Asimov himself (including those edited by family members) are cited in the article. The Gunn book is cited, but the Patrouch and White are not. I have read John Jenkins's summary (http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/Asimov/NonAsimov/White.html) of the White biography, but not the book itself; maybe somebody who has the real thing (or who doesn't mind secondary secondary sources) can incorporate some of that material. Anville 20:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

Shouldn't the quotations be left for Wikiquote? Especially considering how long the article is. I suggest deleting them all or maybe leaving only the "six minutes to live" one. —JerryFriedman 17:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of quotes, but then this was a prodigious author. I'd hate to see us get into a war over which go and which stay. There is no sensible way to debate each quote, one at a time. Here's what I've done: Below is a copy of the Good Doctor's bon mots; please add a + sign before to the ones you think especially deserving of retention. We'll let this cook a little while, and when there's something of a distribution, we can divide the sheep from the goats, then talk about moving the goats to Wikiquotes. Okay? — Xiong 熊 talk 10:29, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

C'mon people, vote on your favorite quotes. The section is a bit overlong, but we don't have anything to discuss until there is some input. We've got anon editors picking and choosing now. Let's think about this. — Xiong 熊 talk * 15:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Okay, okay... sturgeonslawyer 13:19 PDST, 2005 May 8

Then kew. This is a participatory project! — Xiong 熊 talk * 13:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

+"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live...
"Early in my school career, I turned out to be an incorrigible disciplinary problem....
+++"I prefer rationalism to atheism....
"If I could trace my origins to Judas Maccabaeus or King David...
"In 1936, I first wrote science fiction....
++++"Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers."
++"Night was a wonderful time in Brooklyn in the 1930s....
"No one can possibly have lived through the Great Depression without being scarred by it....
+"True literacy is becoming an arcane art...
"Until I became a published writer...
"When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut...
+++"What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics....

Template

I wrote a template at Template:AsimovStory. It bases on the previous format as a table in the articles on the Complete Robot stories. I put it to the articles there, then, however, I found it to be inconsistent with the other story compilations, because it says "preceded: " and "followed by" but not in which compilation. It could be changed to incorporate all the information with "series" separate and pre- and successor boxes to link the stories. If somebody wants to take up this task... Ben talk contr 02:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I created other templates and put them to the The Complete Robot and I, Robot series. Cheers, Ben talk contr 03:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Asimov's Name

I am hoping to find the spelling of Asimov's name in Cyrillic. Apparentli it is the transliteration of 'Azimov', but this does not help me find the actual Cyrillic spelling. I also discovered that the Yiddish spelling (in Hebrew) is "אזימװ". Any help that can be provided would greatly be appreciated. --Zippanova 03:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Айзек Азимов (Ayzek Azimov). Some Russian sources claim that the original family name was Ozimov (Озимов) and a variant of his father name given is Yehuda (Иегуда), rather than Judah (Иуда).

I don't know about Yehuda, but "Ozimov" sounds plausible, since Asim/Asimov is a Central Asian name (but again, it could be than IA descends from khazars...). Mikkalai 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Asimov's FAQ gives Yiddish spelling as aleph-zayin-yod-mem-aleph-vav-vav, which corresponds to Belarussian pronunciation: "Azimav" (his birthplace was belarussian). Mikkalai 07:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Greatest

Anon inserted: Asimov is generally considered to be one of the greatest of all science fiction authors. Before anybody jumps salty on this, I want to back it up, and say it is not a biased statement at all, but pure neutral fact -- the man is held to be very great indeed, a serious contender for the title of All-time Greatest.

If I may be permitted a personal note, I'll say that when I was young, I considered the Good Doctor the greatest, by a couple of lengths. As I've grown older, I've enjoyed him less; his stories are heavy on ideas but short on human interest and character development. But I would never dare to assert that he is anything less than the very top rank, and I'm proud to have enthroned him here. — Xiong 熊 talk * 13:45, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Chronological order of books

I think that the Greater Foundation Series should be listed in the order in which the stories take place in the Asimov universe, rather than by publication date. The publication years can still be included in parentheses after each title. Anyone agree?

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Isaac_Asimov"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles