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.

→

Topics from 2011

Views/Jewish identity

(copied from [[User:Bus stop|Talk#Isaac Asimov). I've reverted your recent edit to this article. In the opening of the section on his "Views*" he is identified as a humanist. You added that it was also Jewish. In the same paragraph, further down, his Jewish upbringing is discussed, and his outlook is treated in a nuanced, well-sourced way. Look it over; if you are satisfied that your concerns are already discussed, all is good. If not, we can bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Thanks. Jd2718 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the reply (copied from my talkpage): Jd2718—as you point out, the paragraph goes on to elaborate on his being Jewish, but elaborating on it doesn't obviate mentioning it from the outset. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

His views are discussed in terms of his being a Jew in the paragraph that follows. Stating that he is a Jew at the outset of a paragraph that relates extensively to him as a Jew is only natural and logical—we are establishing a fact before referring to it. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph that follows is sufficient. Knock off the excessive insertion of "Jew" into every article possible as many times as possible. Your non-neutral POV on the matter is well known. What's already stated is sufficient. More is not necessary. Yworo (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—when you say that my "non-neutral POV on the matter is well known", I think that constitutes a misuse of this Talk page, which is associated with the Asimov article, and is supposed to be used basically for editors to discuss making improvements to the Asimov article. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, his outlook or viewpoint (or philosophy) is the subject of this small section of the article. And that is not Jewish, but rather as described, Humanist. Bus Stop, please take care not to edit other editors' comments. You changed the section name and the sequence of discussion, which you should not have done. Jd2718 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jd2718—I don't believe I've changed the "sequence of discussion". What are you referring to? And you seem to be saying I've "edit[ed] other editors' comments." I don't think I've edited other editors comments. Unless you are referring to my changing the title of this section of the Talk page. I've changed this section title on this Talk page from "Views" to "Views/Jewish identity". I feel my considerations should be given representation in the title of this section too. Note that I have retained your title. I have used a "slash" mark to add my idea of a title after it. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo and Jd2718—why do we find so many references to Asimov as a Jew in the paragraph on his "Views"? You are both arguing that we should not mention in the first sentence of that paragraph that he is a Jew. The first sentence already says that Asimov was an "atheist", a "rationalist", and a "humanist". But you are arguing that it cannot say he was a Jew. That paragraph goes on to discuss various facets of the Jewishness of Asimov. Are you not being inconsistent? If you don't want to mention that he is a Jew in that section of the article entitled "Views" then shouldn't we refrain from engaging in the in-depth sorts of discussions of the Jewishness of Asimov that we now find in that section? There seems to be an inconsistency here. Either mention he is a Jew, along with mentioning he is an atheist, a rationalist, and a humanist, or refrain from delving into his Jewishness in that section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One recurring problem with the issue is that the term "Jew" denotes both a religion and an ethnicity. Asimov was from a Russian Jewish background, but he also was an outspoken atheist very much assimilated into American culture. Simply calling him "a Jew" does not properly reflect this complexity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, what? You don't say that he was a Jew? Every source says he was a Jew. He says countless times that he is a Jew. No article is ever complete. You supply the description (well-sourced) that you feel fleshes out the picture of the type of Jew he was. Was he nonobservant? You convey that—using reliably sourced information. Was he a Jewish atheist? One simply describes this and provides a source. I think this is standard operating procedure. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And this is properly reflected in the initial "Biography" section. The section you have been trying to edit (Views) is simply the wrong section. Jd2718 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jd2718—I read in the "Biography" section that Isaac Asimov was born to "Anna Rachel Berman Asimov and Judah Asimov, a Jewish family of millers." Is that what you are referring to? It is the only reference I can see that might fit the bill. Or are you referring to something else? Also, if you could please try to respond to the several points I made in response to your previous post it might help us to move beyond this disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think not. You have a complete answer: you are trying to edit the wrong section. There is a difference between his views and his background. Beyond that, it feels like we are discussing in order to discuss. We should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jd2718—you say, "There is a difference between his views and his background." The current "Views" section is jam-packed with references to Asimov's Jewishness. The section called "Views" has an awful lot of material about Asimov being Jewish. Yet you are objecting to saying that he is Jewish at the beginning of the "Views" section—along with saying that he is an "atheist", a "rationalist", and a "humanist". Can you please tell me—is his Jewishness an attribute that has bearing on his "views" or is his Jewishness not an attribute that has bearing on his "views"? You have not explained why so much material relating to Asimov being Jewish is in a "views" section if, as you would contend—Jewish is only his background. My feeling is that we could easily say that his Jewishness colors his views. That could be easily sourced. (I will try to bring sources shortly.) And if that can be sourced then would it not follow that one of the influences on his "views" would be his Jewishness? Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this in Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor:

And although Jews have long since invaded every field and are included even among golf players, drug addicts, nuclear physicists, and gangsters—in the world of the joke, they are almost invariably inhabitants of the garment district, owners of candy stores, and careful guardians of each nickel.

Does it offend the Jew to be pictured in jokes as a crass materialist, of dubious ethical standards, reluctant to engage in sports or fisticuffs? Well, if the joke were told in hostile fashion by someone clearly non-Jewish, in an accent such as no Jew ever spoke, it well might.

I, however, though Jewish, as you may now have guessed, tell such jokes with relish. The groups who join me in jokester sessions are usually (though by no means always) largely Jewish. They all tell such jokes, and they all laugh at them.

There is no ambiguity in the above. He is only talking about humor. But he is stating that he is Jewish. In addition to stating that Asimov was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist, our article should be stating that he was Jewish. We have a sentence reading "Isaac Asimov was an atheist, humanist, and a rationalist." It introduces the section of our article called "Views". The exact wording can be discussed. But I would suggest the following revised wording: "Isaac Asimov was a Jew. He was also an atheist, humanist, and a rationalist." I only separate that into two sentences because I think doing so makes for reasonably good writing. The "Views" section already contains numerous references to Asimov as a Jew. Some of those could be eliminated or trimmed back. But if those references to his being Jewish are to stay, I think we should be including his Jewish identity along with his list of attributes—atheist, humanist, and rationalist. We can easily see that Asimov's Jewish identity had influence on the views he held. Consider the following:

"The second major concern for Asimov was the war. He felt involved in the conflict from the start. Despite the fact that he had absolutely no religious leanings, he did feel himself to be part of a global Jewish community. He believed that Hitler's actions against European Jews were actions against him. He felt frustrated and impotent."

From the above we see that his Jewish identity has bearing on his views. The quote is from: Isaac Asimov: a life of the grand master of science fiction, by Michael White; Da Capo Press, 2005 Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of these "examples" are interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. The last is about a specific context, WWII. Generalizing this as you are attempting to do is also original research. For your assertions to be supported, you need a reliable third-party sources explicitly stating that Asimov's views in general were colored by his Jewish ethnicity (since we know that he did not adhere to the Judaism as a religion). So far you have not presented such an explicit statement. On the other hand, his views on Judaism are indeed views and that's why these specific views are in the views section. Yworo (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you say, "For your assertions to be supported, you need a reliable third-party sources explicitly stating that Asimov's views in general were colored by his Jewish ethnicity…" Please consider this source: "The second major concern for Asimov was the war. He felt involved in the conflict from the start. Despite the fact that he had absolutely no religious leanings, he did feel himself to be part of a global Jewish community. He believed that Hitler's actions against European Jews were actions against him. He felt frustrated and impotent." Are you saying that that source does not shed light on Asimov's views on the destruction of European Jewry by Hitler, and that Asimov did not take that personally based on his shared identity with those European Jews? It says that "…he had absolutely no religious leanings…" What religion is being referenced by the term religious leanings"? It says, "…he did feel himself to be part of a global Jewish community." On the basis of what did he feel himself to be part of a "…global Jewish community"? The answer to both questions is his identity as a Jew.

Another point has to be mentioned: You are trying to exclude the above reference from the "Views" section based on your argument that it is not, strictly speaking, a "view". I don't think writing an article involves such a strict adherence to topic by paragraph and section. I think a writer is allowed a little bit of discretion. Sections and titles adhere to themes. But when the opportunity to inject closely related material arises, I don't think a writer has to be inhibited by the strictest interpretation of what belongs in a given section. The only reason to leave the above out of the "Views" section is that there are already far too many references to Asimov's Jewishness in the "Views" section". Although replacing one of the present references to his Jewishness with the above might not be a bad idea. Asimov's notability is not connected to his being a Jew, but rather to his writing notability. In my opinion his Jewishness should just be noted in passing. I have looked at several articles at Credo of similar length as our article and Jewishness in relation to Asimov is not mentioned at all. I think it tends to be in book-length biographies that in-depth details on him as a Jew get explored—not in relatively short articles. I think that a simple passing reference, stating that Asimov was Jewish, is all that is called for. If you wished to add to that that he was nonobservant I think that would be fine. These points are easily sourced. And they do not add undue weight to this element of his identity.

I think that perhaps this article is veering off-track into a violation of WP:NPOV. Jewish identity is too much under scrutiny in an article that should contain little more than a passing reference to Asimov as a Jew. As I said above I would have no objection to it being clarified that he was not religious but rather secular. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop

Please thoroughly read WP:BRD. Two editors oppose your changes to the article. BRD says that after your changes have been reverted twice and discussion has started, you are required to get talk page consensus for your changes before re-adding them to the article. Your POV warrior methods are extremely tiresome. Continued edit warring will be reported to the appropriate venues. Please start making proposals and engaging in discussion on this talk page and get agreement from the regular editors of this article before implementing further changes to this robust and established article. Yworo (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think you've been on Wikipedia long enough to learn what a citation is. Please thoroughly read WP:CITE. A repetition of a quotation in a footnote linked to a Google Book is not a citation. A citation is author, title, page number, publisher, date and ISBN. A direct link can be added, but normally as a unnamed link at the end of the citation. This article appears to mostly use the "cite book" template. Your edits should not create more work for other editors. If you can't do a proper citation, I will revert you even if I agree with your edit. You're not a child to be cleaned up after. (Or are you?) Yworo (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—Wikipedia is a voluntary, collaborative project. We contribute what we can. Interaction with our fellow editor is almost unavoidable. You have not posted to this Talk page in a week. During that time I've posted to this Talk page many times. Please look up above to see the issues I've tried to address. I've asked questions. I proposed edits. I've presented sources. I assume you've had this article watch-listed as you reverted my edits of the past 12 hours almost as soon as they were made. Is that your intention—to only revert, without any attempt at dialogue? This is your only recent post:

"The paragraph that follows is sufficient. Knock off the excessive insertion of "Jew" into every article possible as many times as possible. Your non-neutral POV on the matter is well known. What's already stated is sufficient. More is not necessary. User:Yworo|Yworo (User talk:Yworo|talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)"

You should not be removing relevant, sourced material. Asimov is listed as being an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. Why is he not additionally listed as being a Jew? Have you looked at the sources I have posted above? A biographer of Asimov presents the case that Asimov perceived Hitler's assault on European Jews almost personally. He did so because he (Asimov) perceived himself as part of a "global Jewish community". That is material taken from a biography of Asimov. Why are you removing such material? Please see the sources I have posted up above. One source serves to confirm (in Asimov's own words) that he is Jewish. It is a simple matter for us to present this sourced material pertaining to Asimov: he says that he is a Jew; a biographer asserts that Asimov perceived Hitler's actions personally. In my opinion that would seem to be an accurate picture of Asimov. No source contradicts it. Why are you reverting? Why are you endeavoring to remove that material from the article?

This Talk page can only serve a purpose if you use it. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And discussion is intended to lead to a consensus. Don't add your non-neutral POV material to the article again until you have achieved a consensus here on the talk page. No editor here has yet agreed that your additions are an improvement to the article. Just having sources doesn't mean that material must be left in the article. The regular editors of the article certainly get a say as to whether the material is both appropriate, necessary, well-written, and well-integrated. In my personal opinion, your additions have not been. Nor has any other regular editor of the article stepped up and agreed with you, quite the opposite, in fact. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—there is no reason why Asimov's being a Jew can't be noted, and you've cited no reason, nor has Jd2718, the only other editor supporting you. And furthermore I've asked you both above:

"Yworo and Jd2718—why do we find so many references to Asimov as a Jew in the paragraph on his "Views"? You are both arguing that we should not mention in the first sentence of that paragraph that he is a Jew. The first sentence already says that Asimov was an "atheist", a "rationalist", and a "humanist". But you are arguing that it cannot say he was a Jew. That paragraph goes on to discuss various facets of the Jewishness of Asimov. Are you not being inconsistent? If you don't want to mention that he is a Jew in that section of the article entitled "Views" then shouldn't we refrain from engaging in the in-depth sorts of discussions of the Jewishness of Asimov that we now find in that section? There seems to be an inconsistency here. Either mention he is a Jew, along with mentioning he is an atheist, a rationalist, and a humanist, or refrain from delving into his Jewishness in that section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)"

The above is in reference to the Isaac Asimov#Views section of the article. Neither you nor Jd2718 seem inclined to engage in dialogue. Neither of you respond to any questions. You have apparently determined an outcome and you don't wish to even entertain the thoughts of another editor. All you are doing is reverting.

Note WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We both engaged in dialogue. We both said that the place you wanted to make your additions was inappropriate. That formed a WP:CONSENSUS, which you should not be attempting to circumvent. You are not a regular editor of this article, you came to it for a single purpose, to add more references to Jews and Judaism to the article. Asimov's Jewish parentage and ethnicity have already been adequately covered in the article: Asimov was known primarily as a science and science-fiction writer, not as a Jewish thinker. Material about his father either belongs in an article about his father, if sufficiently notable, or in the early life section, where I've moved the material you added. Yworo (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yworo—you are not engaging in dialogue. I posted sources up above. Did you not see the above two sources and their associated material:

1. ) I, however, though Jewish, as you may now have guessed, tell such jokes with relish. The groups who join me in jokester sessions are usually (though by no means always) largely Jewish. They all tell such jokes, and they all laugh at them.

2. ) "The second major concern for Asimov was the war. He felt involved in the conflict from the start. Despite the fact that he had absolutely no religious leanings, he did feel himself to be part of a global Jewish community. He believed that Hitler's actions against European Jews were actions against him. He felt frustrated and impotent."

I am talking to myself on this Talk page. All you (and Jd2718) have been doing is reverting. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A little quick on the trigger I see. I didn't respond before because it clearly was not a serious argument, but just further attempts at pushing your POV. I've answered it now. Yworo (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yworo—you are engaging in WP:Original Research. He was Jewish. Sources say he was Jewish. As wikipedia editors we note dutifully that Asimov was a "Jew, an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist." You do not know that his being a Jew was less important than his being an atheist, a humanist, or a rationalist. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's covered in the paragraph. Saying he was a Jew without qualification implies he was religious. We've been over this before and consensus is that the paragraph quoting Asimov describing in his own words his relation to his Jewish ethnicity and Judaism is the best way to present it. You even participated in this compromise, though in your usual tendentious manner. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you have difficulty following what I object to, I object to your synthesis by means of example to "prove" that his Jewishness influenced his views in general. That's not how we do things. If you want to include that he was a Jew at the beginning of the views section implying that his Jewishness influenced his views in general, you need a source that explicitly says that. Examples don't prove anything for the purposes of Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add another voice here, I've been somewhat cursorily following this debate; I haven't had time to read all of it. I just went and looked at the last set of edits by Bus Stop and the following set of edits by Yworo. I think Yworo's version addresses the question of Asimov's Jewishness better; I think it does a better job of placing it in context and giving it no more or less importance than it deserves. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—at WP:NPOV I find: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." And at WP:DRNC I find: "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it."

You have brought no source that might suggest Asimov might not have been a Jew. Articles of similar length that I have found at Credo make no reference to Jewishness concerning Asimov. You say of me above at 21:57, 28 January 2011: "You are not a regular editor of this article, you came to it for a single purpose, to add more references to Jews and Judaism to the article." Please hear what I am trying to articulate: I couldn't care less if all the oblique references to Asimov's Jewishness were removed from the article. The "Views" section of the article contains more references to Asimov's Jewishness than to any other single subject. I've asked you more than once: why can't the "Views" section simply mention in passing that Asimov was Jewish especially in light of the fact that it contains so many tangential references to Asimov as a Jew? I am not of the opinion that most of those references provide "nuance" as suggested above by Jd2718. I am of the opinion that most of those references are just extraneous and gratuitous. Asimov is not noted for his Jewishness but rather for his science fiction writing. Wikipedia is not censored—we are allowed to mention that Asimov was Jewish. You have said: "Saying he was a Jew without qualification implies he was religious." No—it does not—that is your personally-held belief. I brought this source: "The second major concern for Asimov was the war. He felt involved in the conflict from the start. Despite the fact that he had absolutely no religious leanings, he did feel himself to be part of a global Jewish community. He believed that Hitler's actions against European Jews were actions against him. He felt frustrated and impotent." It points out that he had "absolutely no religious leanings." I think there are a variety of solutions to the differences of opinion that are being expressed on this Talk page. The middle-of-the-road and probably the best solution is to pare back some of the extraneous references to Asimov being a Jew. And at the same time the simple statement that Asimov was a Jew should be added to the article.

Sources are important. All of the sources I've seen say that Asimov was a Jew. The onus is on you to show by means of sources that Asimov was not a Jew. Another source that I brought is this one: "I, however, though Jewish, as you may now have guessed, tell such jokes with relish." There are many such sources, both by Asimov and by others. At the bare minimum this article should be saying that Asimov was Jewish. You are misconstruing my presence here at this article. If there were no allusion to Asimov's Jewishness in this article I would want to insert the assertion that Asimov was Jewish. But that, in my opinion, is all that is called for. The article contains a lot more than is minimally called for. Since Asimov is not noted for Jewishness but rather for being a writer it is questionable whether so much emphasis on and reference to Jewishness is called for, and I think it is not. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article currently quotes Asimov as saying "I am Jewish", and says that he identified as a non-observant Jew. I think this is sufficient. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

FIlms

Shouldn't we have some subsection listing those works of Asimov which have been made into films, or - at least - which have been the basis of films? Like I, Robot -> I, Robot (film), The Bicentennial Man -> Bicentennial Man (film), Nightfall (Asimov short story) -> Nightfall (1988 film) and Nightfall (2000 film), and perhaps also Fantastic Voyage which Asimov later wrote into a novel. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Soviet-born

I know this is a matter of contention here for many, but I think it's important to note that he was not born in the United States. This seems like common practice in most articles about people born in one nation but settling in another. Why should Asimov be an exception? 98.221.120.104 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's made quite clear in the article; but it should not be part of the lede. See WP:MOSBIO. "opening paragraph should have:...Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)... In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable." If you ever talked to him, you'd remember that he was a solid American with a strong New York City accent. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We have it in the first line of the Biography section. Nevertheless, IMHO, it wouldn't hurt to mention it in the lead as well. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's specifically discouraged by WP:MOSBIO: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Since Asimov's family left his country of birth when he was three, there is nothing about his birthplace which is relevant to his notability. The IP makes an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. This article should not be changed: other articles the IP has seen with xxx-born should have that removed from their ledes, unless actually relevant to that subject's notability. Yworo (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to undermine his American-ness, but I think it's interesting to note that he was born in a different country, regardless of how young he was when he settled in the United States. I don't understand why this should be suppressed. After all, he was not born an American citizen, making it noteworthy. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not being suppressed; but by our manual of style, we don't put it in the lede: that's all. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat odd, considering that the lead gives his actual birth name, complete with a Russian spelling, while failing to acknowledge his birth outside the United States. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is plain in the infobox, and in the first section of the body of the article. There are a series of WP style decisions made about the opening of an article, and a good thing as well. While I do not agree with all, the effect is often to help those limiting the lede... Otherwise, the opening becomes overloaded and hard to read. What should we expect up top? For a person, name, dob/dod and what makes them famous. Many more details follow. As an aside, Asimov was born near an active front in the Soviet Polish war, soon after the Russian Revolution. It would take some work to determine which government, if any, actually exercised control of his village at that time. Not sure if it would be worth it. Jd2718 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the front was in western Belarus, whereas Asimov was born in eastern Belarus/Russia, at a time after the Revolution, meaning Soviet-born would be an appropriate description. I'm not trying to fight you, it's not the end of the world if you don't include it in the lead, but I still find it very strange that the lead includes his actual birth name, complete with non-English spelling, while neglecting to clarify that he was not born in the United States or an American citizen. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor am I disagreeing about facts with you. Asimov was Soviet-born (I just corrected the place of birth, the article had it described as Belarussian SSR). I did not mean to open the possibility that the Poles controlled the village - only that central control was weak. And that's idle speculation on my part. The only real question is what belongs where, and there is no reason to ignore the manual of style. Jd2718 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

In the info box his nationality is given as Belarussian Jewish. In the first line of the article, his name is rendered in Belarussian, identified as his original name. Both are mistakes. In addition, the Yiddish is missing from the opening line. Can someone check the sources for the correct spelling in Yiddish? Jd2718 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Petrovichi was in the area around Gomel, at the time of Asimov's birth the area was part of the Russian Federation. Much of the rest of modernday Belarus was occupied by the Polish army. There was some sort of joint Belarussian/Lithuanian SSR, but I am not sure what if any territory it controlled. Certainly not, in any case, the village of Asimov's birth. I've accordingly changed his country of birth to RFSFR, but perhaps "Soviet Russia" would be more accurate? Jd2718 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Misreading WP:MOSBIO

What WP:MOSBIO actually says about ethnicity is "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Yworo (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New Career/smoking

Towards the end of his life and taking cruise holidays Asimov found, to his surprise, that the passengers were willing to pay his fare if he would give after dinner talks. Some cruise companies then began to advertise Asimov as part of the cruise entertainment and reported increased bookings.

Wasn't Asimov also strongly anti smoking?AT Kunene (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

From talk pages

Hi

@ Debresser: Those edits were perfectly acceptable, especially the summaries. For you to put "unexplained" is both ridiculous and insulting.

As for the content, Asimov was not a practising Jew and so I changed it to ethnic to differentiate. There was nothing wrong with that as the current text is misleading and could lead readers to assume that he was a practising Jew when we all know he was atheist. That sentence which is ref'd does not say he is a practising Jew, it simply says that he acknowledges he is a Jew, in the same way I would acknowledge I am English, or that I am of Catholic descent, even though I am atheist.

Why should his name be included in Hebrew? (in other words, if in Hebrew, why not French, German, etc.)

I would remind you that someone added that, I have reverted it and we should now be at the discussion stage, something which you should have followed as an experienced editor.

It is ridiculous that such a large amount of the article and talk page is harping on about his Jewishness when he was an atheist. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first edit was to remove Asimov's name in Yiddish. It was Hebrew, not Yiddish. That Asimov was an atheist is a reason to remove his name in Yiddish? What does atheism have to do with Yiddish? That is why I said that this edit was unexplained. The reason Yiddish is there, is that Yiddish was - together with English - the language Asimov spoke in his childhood. This is specifically mentioned in the article.

Your second edit was to change the fact that Asimov identified himself as a non-observant Jew to that he was an atheist. Although he was an atheist, the source says very clearly "I am a non-observant Jew". However you want to understand those words, these are what he said! In Wikipedia we mention sexual orientation, and ethnic and religious affiliation as self-identified by the subjects of the articles (this is a documented guideline), not by the way some chaotic druid (speaking of atheists) understands it. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And since you ask, the reason I didn't initiate discussion is because your edits are so completely unacceptable in view of these simple arguments. I fact, I checked a few of your other edits, just to make sure your weren't some vandal or anti-semite. Which may serve you as an indication how far off I consider those two edits of yours. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the Yiddish part was removed incorrectly, after reading about his fluent use of the language.

The way you describe the "change the fact ... to an atheist." is not correct. I changed "non-observant Jew" to "of Jewish descent".

This constant misquoting of my actions, first "unexplained", then "to an atheist" and finally some rant about trying to assert some ridiculous religious affirmation from my Wikiname and accusing me of anti-Semitism is insulting.

Calling my edits "completely unacceptable" is merely your opinion, not a fact, and probably due to your own affiliations. Accusing me of anti-Semitism is also a little insulting. Just because I was trying to put his Jewishness into context, that of ethnic origin and not religious following, you should not even suggest such a thing. My religious views are nothing to do with what happens on Wiki, and more importantly, druids were religious, not atheist you obviously need to read about them and learn something.

I will await an apology for your "unexplained", accusation of anti-Semitism, and the way you have attacked me about my Wiki name.

None of this changes the fact that a qualifier should be put in. Leaving "non-observant Jew", is suggesting that he was of the Jewish religion, though he did not practice it. If you cannot see why this should be done, then I suggest that you are indeed biassed. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was copied here from a section on my talkpage without my consent. Nor do I think it was appropriate to do so. I have answered all personal issues there. The issues that pertain to Chaosdruid's edits to this article I have answered already above, and I am open to input from other editors regarding them. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that "non-observant Jew" suggests he was of the Jewish religion seems to be refuted by the existence of such articles here on Wikipedia as Jewish atheism or Jewish Buddhist. Lol. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I followed the edits and discussion, and agree in toto with Debresser. Asimov's name in Yiddish (I suggested it, and thank whoever added it) actually does what C.d. seems to want: provides context for understanding Asimov to have been culturally rather than religiously Jewish. Apologies if it was inappropriate to continue this discussion here, but as I have not always agreed with Debresser, I thought it worth chiming in. Jd2718 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad for your support. It was only the personal aspect of the talkpage discussion that I find should not have been pasted onto here. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I made those edits after reading this Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnic_and_cultural_perspectives. It clearly states that:

Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism but still identifies with Judaism or other Jews culturally and fraternally, or both.
"Ethnic Jew" is sometimes used to distinguish non-practicing from practicing (religious) Jews.
Typically, ethnic Jews are cognizant of their Jewish background, and may feel strong cultural (even if not religious) ties to Jewish traditions and to the Jewish people or nation.
"Ethnic Jews" include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists ... Chaosdruid (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean we are now in agreement? Debresser (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, definitely not. I have already accepted my error for removing the Yiddish spelling.

I want the second edit to read "ethnic Jew", you want it to say "non-observant Jew". Chaosdruid (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:American skeptics

Why is this Russian-born atheist and rationalist listed in Category:American skeptics? --damiens.rf 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Because, per WP:MOS we generally account for people by their legal and/or chosen nationality and not simply by where they happened to be born. --71.191.197.79 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

9000 letters and postcards

Only? He did not use a secretary, or researchers, and handled his own professional and personal correspondance.
He found time to send little old me a 3-sentence postcard in the 1970s.
9000 seems too low, considering how active he was. Varlaam (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See this discussion in the archives of this talk page. Looks like someone has changed it again since then. I suspect it should be 90,000 but as I said in the linked discussion I don't have a good source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

"Review of an Asimov biography, The Unauthorized Life" (currently footnote 61 is a dead link.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken self-reference

In the list "Other science books by Asimov", there is the following item: Planets for Man (with Stephen H. Dole) (1964, reprinted by RAND 2007) ISBN 978-0-8330-4226-2 [1]

While the other books titles are all wikilinks that point at either existent or non-existent Wikipedia entries, this wikilink is self-referent: it points to the very entry where it is placed (Isaac Asimov), and does not even point to an specific point of it. I think this is some kind of mistake. -Ignacio Agulló

How is it a problem? It's better than no information at all, isn't it? And a redirect can be changed to point elsewhere or made into an article at any time. The alternative would result in a search which would return a long list of unrelated articles, with this one not necessarily coming up first. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Read that, edited my point above to clarify it. -Ignacio Agulló

Ah, I see you may have also meant that it is a circular link. That's correct, and it shouldn't be, it should be plain text. I will fix that. Yworo (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)