This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Topics from 2016

American or Jewish-born Russian

I decided to put this under debate since Asimov is called American on the wiki page. In my humble opinion his origins dictate what nationality he was and most apropiate is Jewish-born Russian. Alas maybe I am missing something and he was actually American by origins. Awaiting replies! Uzishan (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please check this page in the manual of style for opening paragraphs. It makes it very clear that ethnicity should not generally be stated unless it is relevant to the person's notability and that the citizenship to be stated should be that when the person became notable. Deagol2 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Asimov Photo

The main Wikipedia article about Isaac Asimov shows a photo, which the caption indicates is from 1965. That date is clearly incorrect. The photo must have been taken ten to twenty years before that.

This writer knew Asimov personally during the years 1963-65, while attending Harvard Business School. He regularly attended Mensa meetings with Asimov, and on several occasions Asimov attended Mensa meetings in the writer's home. During that time, Asimov was much more middle-aged in appearance, and much heavier than shown in the photo. However, he had not yet grown the mutton-chop sideburns for which he was so readily recognized in later life.

In 1965, Asimov was 45 or 46 years old. While the photo unquestionably is of Isaac Asimov, it is apparently of a person in his late 20s or early 30s.

A more accurate dating would be appropriate, or else eliminating the date entirely.

71.187.251.197 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree this does not look like a 1965 Asimov. The 1965 date comes from the Library of Congress's New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection, as the origin of the photo: "Date Created/Published: 1965". The LOC is probably just repeating what the NYWT had; and I suspect it was probably last-published in 1965; not necessarily taken in 1965. I would propose striking the year; the publication date is not helpful. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As a data point, this video shows Asimov in mid-1969. To my eyes, the purportedly 1965 photo in question looks far more than just 4 years younger than the 1969 Asimov in the video.

Note, I realize this sounds like a big dose of WP:OR from both 71.187.251.197 and myself, but it isn't. I'm not suggesting putting in some other date based on our assessment; that would indeed be OR. Rather, I'm saying that the LOC notation that the photo was created or published in 1965 is an insufficient basis for Wikipedia to unambiguously state that the photo was taken in 1965. TJRC (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The photo appears on the jacket of the Doubleday first edition of Nine Tomorrows so can be no later than 1959. Deagol2 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion voiced, that the 1965 year is evidently postdating, and hold therefore that the year has been rightfully removed from the caption of that picture. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned in this discussion in 2014, the photo seems to be from circa 1956. It was published on books in the late 1950s. Other than the matter of the date, the "licensing" on Commons is a false statement deliberately inserted by one user. The actual statement from LoC applying to this image is in this version of the Commons page. If anyone can find something about the copyright status, that would certainly be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced middle name: a hoax?

The article doesn't provide a source for his middle name, and it isn't given in his autobiographies, even though he discusses his first and surnames at great length. (The citation at the end of the sentence only deals with his date of birth.) So unless a source can be found for it, I propose removing it. Richard75 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A Google Books search turns up quite a number of books that say so. Some of them look like citogenesis; not clear to me if all of them are.

It was first added by User:Чръный человек on October 29, 2009, initially as "Yudivich", then changed by the same editor on the same day to "Yudovich". The editor is still editing, and hopefully my incantation of his or her user name here will attract their attention to this discussion. Чръный, can you tell where you learned this middle name?

As I understand it -vich is a Russian patronymic meaning "son of"; and just as "Johnson" may have been used to designate a "son of John," "Yudovich" may have been added here in a well-meaning but erroneous attempt to designate Isaac Asimov as the son of Judah Asimov; although it may not be his actual name.

Interestingly, if one limited the Google Books search to pre-2009, a number of hits still show up (many of them clearly unrelated to the question), but none with verifiable text. So they may very well all be citogenesis based on a long-standing but erroneous assertion in the Wikipedia article. TJRC (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It was translated from ruwiki. Аt that time I have not even thought about the sources. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Чръный человек. It seems that you added it to ru:Азимов, Айзек as well, in this edit, and then replicated that here, right? Did you have a basis for the ruwiki edit? TJRC (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I don't think it's that editor's fault, as his edit was only to take the name Юдович and translate it into English. Google Translate identifies Юдович as Ukrainian for Yudovich. But the name was already in the article, so I'll look and see if I can find out where it originally came from. In the meantime, I looked at the pre-2009 Google Books search results, and Yudovich doesn't show up in many of them, and where it does show up it's only as somebody else's name. Richard75 (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction: the same editor added it in his previous edit here. It was unsourced, and his talk page shows a number of occasions where he's been pulled up for errors. I'm going to remove it from the article. Richard75 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since he was born in Russia, there is no doubt that the patronimic was used on all official documents. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please also note that per WP:BRD you shouldn't undo my revert without first establishing consensus. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In my view, if there is no source to back it up, the middle name should be removed. Deagol2 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, you reverted my edit, so WP:BRD says you should have established a consensus to do that. Do you have a source for your official documents claim? Richard75 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, do you have any sources that point to the middle name being used on any official documents? That would settle it. Right now, the unsourced inclusion of a middle name seems to be WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, since he was born in Russia, it is a given that the patronimic was used. I will be happy to have a look for a source as well, but there can be no doubt about the fact that on all Russian official documents, patronimics are used. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If you enter either “Isaak Yudovich Ozimov” or “Isaac Yudovich Asimov” into Google, you will get 8,000-9,000 hits. Not only the Wikipedia article, but also others possibly descending from it. Of course, the search engine is rather too smart for its own good (for our purposes), as it filters out the extra name and continues the search.
I devised another scheme for armchair research, using the ProQuest database to search the archives of several major newspapers for (1) “Isaak Yudovich Ozimov”; (2) “Isaac Yudovich Asimov”; (3) “Isaac Asimov” (as a control); and (4) “Yudovich” by itself, as another control.
Results: (search results returned)
The New York Times (coverage 1851-2012): Isaak Yudovich Ozimov 0, Isaac Yudovich Asimov 0, Isaac Asimov 1,326 (spanning 1939-2012), Yudovich (alone) 1;
The Boston Globe (coverage 1872-1984): Isaak Yudovich Ozimov 0, Isaac Yudovich Asimov 0, Isaac Asimov 431 (spanning 1950-1984), Yudovich (alone) 4;
The Chicago Tribune (coverage 1849-1992): Isaak Yudovich Ozimov 0, Isaac Yudovich Asimov 0, Isaac Asimov 533 (spanning 1949-1992), Yudovich (alone) 1;
The Wall Street Journal (coverage 1889-1998): Isaak Yudovich Ozimov 0, Isaac Yudovich Asimov 0, Isaac Asimov 53 (spanning 1965-1998), Yudovich (alone) 1
The Christian Science Monitor (coverage 1908-2002): Isaak Yudovich Ozimov 0, Isaac Yudovich Asimov 0, Isaac Asimov 145 (spanning 1949-2002), Yudovich (alone) 1;
Summary:
Isaac Asimov was often mentioned in these publications, from roughly his emergence on the literary scene through the last year of coverage in the database. Not once did any of these publications incorporate “Yudovich” into his name. (The other Yudovich that turned up would appear to be a chess master and author.) I didn’t see much point in checking the other publications available, but will remain open to suggestions. For myself, I would conclude that the additional name is spurious.
WHPratt (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, but why would English newspaper use his Russian birth name? That is not to be expected. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much access to books, but on the Internet, searching for "Isaak Yudovich Ozimov" (including the parenthesis), you can find quite a few sources, like:

I don't know which source is best for Wikipedia, but one thing is sure, such was his name. Nobody can contest that. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I had no illusion that my little study would prove anything definitively. However, had I found one (1) use of the middle name while he was still alive, I'd consider that as evidence for the additional name. Can anyone come up with such a reference? WHPratt (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only problem with those sources is that there's no way of knowing if the authors got their information from Wikipedia. Is there a source from before October 2009, or alternatively is there a source for the fact that every Russian's middle name is his father's first name with "ovich" added? Richard75 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The question whether sources used Wikipedia always exist. Indications that this is not the case are 1. the sources don't just copy the whole article or paragraph, but use original wording. 2. at least one of them indicates sources and does not mention Wikipedia.

The second question is not relevant to this article specifically, so can't help us. It is however so, and I think that this fact is well know even among people who don't know Russian, which is another reason I see no need to find a source for this. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only one which lists sources is russianheritagemuseum, which lists Asimov's autobiographies, none of which mention a middle name. However, I see that a Google search for "Russian middle names" produces several articles which support what you say. So I think you must be right that he had that name in Russia, although he seems not to have used it in America. Richard75 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody uses patronimics in America. Also note that he came to America age 3. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, the Google hits, in particular on the more-reliable Google Books mentions, are discussed in my comment above. I think the most salient fact there is that no hits from Google Books mention the middle name until after it was added to the Wikipedia article in late 2008. Then suddenly, they do. It strongly suggests that this is a case of citogenesis. "one thing is sure, such was his name" is very much in doubt. Do you have a pre-2009 source? TJRC (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking all of Asimov's published obituaries. If they didn't use a middle name there, I'd conclude he didn't have one. (At least not one that he recognized.) WHPratt (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat that American publications, including obituaries, are not expected to mention the patronimic. Even though this is the English Wikipedia, not all sources are American. Please think a little more global, per WP:GLOBALIZE.

There are biographies, including an autobiography. Those should be checked first of all. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not as patronymic, but rather, a writer of an obituary -- in any language -- would want to mention the subject's full name, whatever that may be. WHPratt (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In his autobiography "In Memory Yet Green", page 10, Asimov mentions his great-great-great-grandfather and his descendants were dealers in rye. This is followed by "Jews in those days were known, in biblical fashion, by patronymics—that is, as so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. I myself would be Isaac, son of Judah, according to this system or, in Hebrew (transliterated), I would be Yitzkhak ben-Yehudah." Darkday (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died off. As far as I can tell, the consensus is that there is no reliable source for this middle name; it only began to appear in English-language media after being added to the Wikipedia page; is not mentioned in any published obituary, which would generally have an interest in publishing the decedent's full name; and Asimov's autobiography does not mention it, instead only saying what he would have been called in Hebrew.

Based on this, I'm removing the middle name. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Izaak Ozimov: original research?

The "Early life" section gives an explanation for different spellings of his name, but the only source given is Google Translate. I'm not sure that this belongs in the article, but would welcome others' views. Richard75 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

See of the sources I mentioned in the section above mention this as well. It is connected to the Russian pronunciation of the unstressed "o", which is "a". Debresser (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll accept that. Richard75 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Featured article renominate

I think this article should be renominated for featured article. It was removed in 2007 because it had only 12 references. It has 124 now. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement about deleting unsourced information

@FreeKnowledgeCreator, MagicatthemovieS, and Deagol2:: The second time they removed these statements, MagicatthemovieS said "I deleted unsourced information".

FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted with the edit summary "Even if it is uncited information, you still need consensus to remove it - adding citations would be more constructive than simply removing the information".

I don't believe that first part is true. We remove unsourced information all the time with no attempt at seeking consensus. I agree that adding citations is a more constructive and more welcome activity than removing anything tagged with a {{citation needed}}, but anything without a citation is susceptible to being removed.

Now that the information has been restored twice, it's time to discuss it here. Is there reason to think it is true? What valuable purpose does it serve here if we can't verify it? —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "We remove unsourced information all the time with no attempt at seeking consensus". That, however, is because in most cases, removal of such information is not disputed. In this case, it is being disputed, so consensus is therefore necessary. To me it seems that removing uncited information which it would be possible to cite, rather than adding citations, is not a way to improve the Asimov article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: You've been around a lot longer than I have, but surely the burden is on the person who wants to keep the unsourced information to find a cite. Are there examples of discussions where unsourced information gets to stay? I'm not asking to be contentious. I'm still learning about Wikipedia and the practices of Wikipedia editors. It would seem to me that in any discussion involving veteran editors, an editor's decision to immediately revert an unsourced addition to WP would be uniformly supported. How does that change when information has been on WP for some time, has some tenure, but was never sourced? —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor returned again and deleted more paragraphs without any comment or reason given. They appear determined to have their way without any discussion. Bad manners if nothing else. I have restored all of the paragraphs with citations added. Deagol2 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

My 2¢: When a passage in an article includes ^{[citation needed]} for an extended time, the burden should shift to those who want to retain the unsupported claims. We can quibble about how long that extended time ought to be, but when it's measured in years, as it is in this case (two years), it's surely over the line. I would suggest that those who want to include the unsupported information should not re-add the unsupported passage without the requested citation.

As Jimbo so persuasively put it: There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Put me down in the camp that says these passages should be removed; without prejudice to restoration provided the restoration is accompanied by a WP:RS. TJRC (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't agree that removing a statement that is so obviously true is a good thing, but if the end result is that it prods someone into finally adding the citation, all's well that ends well. --ssd (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. TJRC (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability. Debresser (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Postal stamp

Please add to the Isaac Asimov entry, "Recognition and awards": In 2000 the Israel Postal Service honored Asimov with a postal stamp, as part of its "Science Fiction in Israel" series. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://israelphilately.org.il/en/catalog/stamps/1633/Science%20Fiction%3a%20Robotics%2c%20Travel%20in%20Time%2c%20Travel%20in%20Space

217.132.28.97 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Emanuel Lottem

I am not sure that appearing on a stamp is appropriate for this section. Deagol2 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it must be worth mentioning somewhere. Not everyone gets a stamp. Richard75 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I just think the section is heading towards trivia if we start recording items of ephemera such as stamps. Should there not be a notability test for inclusion here? Deagol2 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that an actual official government postage stamp could possibly qualify as "ephemera"! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say that postage stamps are the epitome of ephemera - a use and throw away item. Deagol2 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays, individual stamps may be treated that way; but I could do a list of stamps of which fewer than five copies exist on the planet, and which are highly valuable. Stamp designs, on the other hand, are a finite and limited set; and appearance as a stamp design means that the subject will be enshrined forever in the Scott catalogue and its rivals.--Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Trivia, ephemera, minutiae, call it what you will. I do not see that appearing on a stamp is worthy of note in an encyclopedia. Including craters and asteroids is bad enough as it is. Deagol2 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)