Talk:Isaac Asimov/Archive 3

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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.

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)

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)

Transcription in Russian

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. :))))

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)

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)

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. :)

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)

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)

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)

In "The Gods Themselves" the "aliens" engage in "melting", which requires an "alien" from each of the three groups (Rational, Parental, and Emotional) to reproduce in the stated order. Once the "triad" engages in their third and final "melt" they become a "Hard One" fused into one being. Their young then find a partner from each of the other two groups and the cycle repeats.97.124.250.99 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides a tag “{{fact}}”, which renders as “” 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I just happened to be passing through and was rather surprised to see that this observation is still there and still attributed to me, nearly four years after the objection was first raised. Whether or not my reviews are notable or reasonable sources for Wikipedia isn't something I can address, but it's definitely not a good thing to use a secondary source for an observation like this. (I don't even think the statement is particularly true.) I believe that the source is Brian W. Aldiss in Trillion Year Spree, but as I don't have a copy I can't confirm that right away. In any event, if I can't find the source, I'll remove the citation myself. John H. Jenkins 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsength (talk • contribs)

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

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)

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)